


V 



0' .*V'v -> v" 



Ay-' .^^^<--m-' 









,0 




S • • A ^^i- 



Tt^:^^. 



^>. 
- 't 



• * ' ^' 



-^^0^ 



-o <^°<. 






^ 
^^. 



^ .-^^. ^/"^o -;^2/^*^ ,0^ % "'>^/ ^^ o^ . 







o . (. "* -0 O 






"^-f". 






<. 



.0' 






^ ^ 






»<> 



o. 



^0 



^''^<^^ 



% 



"^^ 









y .... 



» » ' * 'v 






,V-^ 



"^t- v'^^ 

'^^^n'^ 



<. 

























f% 'W 



^■v, 



O > 






V .<? 






■0 



- O"^ c ° " " ■» "^ O 






•^. 












;l.^' 



O > . - / 



'■^ ->;/^ 









vV-^' 



o . . ' ,0^ 



* • ' \^ 



<r 



v^ 






sV* 












^ "^ ' . • * -(^ 






* £. « 






^ ' . . s V 







0' 



o 






UNION CAUSE IN KENTUCKY 




Captain Thomas Speed 

From a photograph 



THE UNION CAUSE 
IN KENTUCKY 



1860-1865 



BY 

Captain THOMAS SPEED 

Adjutant 12th Kentucky Infantry and Veteran Infantry Vols. 1861-65 

Member of the American Historical Association 

Author of "The Wilderness Road," etc. 



G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 

NEW YORK AND LONDON 

Ube Iftnicfterbocfter press 

1907 



^i 



1 

^n. b mi 

4fA., 1,,/foTf 

l^ sx-rs: 






Copyright, 1907 

BY 

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 



Qlbe IRniclterbocltec pceoe mew Slocl: 



A FOREWORD BY JUSTICE HARLAN 

Published by permission of the writer 

Washington, D. C, October 27, 1904. 

Dear Captain Speed : 

I have just concluded my final examination of the 
several articles prepared by you under the general title 
of "The Union Cause in Kentucky." They are to be 
commended for the fairness and fulness with which the 
facts are stated, as well as for the genuine patriotic spirit 
pervading them all. The survivors of the struggle of 1 861 
in Kentucky, and equally their descendants, will wish 
these articles published in book form, and that the book 
shall go into every library in the country. And they 
will, I am sure, feel grateful to you for having, after 
patient investigation and great labor, brought together 
the facts connected with the defeat by the Kentucky 
Unionists of the attempt to ally our old State with the 
Southern Confederacy. 

No more valuable services were performed in the 
struggle to preserve the Union than were performed by 
the Union men of Kentucky. I make this statement 
without the slightest doubt of its accuracy. The country 
at large never has had an adequate conception of the 
sacrifices made and the work done by the Union men of 
the Border Slave States. It is not too much to say that 
if the people of those States had been as favorable to 
secession as were the people of the Cotton States, it 
would, most probably, have been impossible to prevent 



vi A Foreword by Justice Harlan 

the dissolution of the Union. No one, after reading 
what you have written — certainly no one familiar with 
the situation as it was at the commencement of the seces- 
sion movement — will fail to recognize the truth of this 
view. And yet a strenuous effort was made, after the 
close of the war, to minimize the work of the Unionists 
of the Border States, and to create the impression that 
what they did was not worth remembering, nor of any 
particular value to the country. I confidently assert 
that, after the flag was fired on at Sumter, a large major- 
ity of the people of Kentucky were at all times for the 
maintenance of the Union and unalterably opposed to its 
disruption by secession. Kentucky was the first-born of 
the Union, and, despite the strong ties of kinship and 
business between them and the friends of secession, a 
large majority of its people held steadily to the view that 
if the Union ship went down, our State must be the last 
to desert it. That was the spirit in which the Kentucky 
Unionists rallied to the standard of the country in 1861. 
While some did not approve, indeed openly disapproved, 
many things done in the course of the war which were 
supposed injuriously to affect the institution of slavery, 
the Kentucky Unionists, all of them, clung unfalteringly 
to the idea that the dissolution of the Union was not a 
remedy for any evil, and that, cost what it might in men 
and money, the national authority, as derived from the 
Constitution, must be reinstated over every foot of 
American soil. To say nothing of the colored men in 
Kentucky who were mustered into the service of the 
United States towards the close of the Civil War, it is 
safe to say that the white men in Kentucky who openly 
and actively sided with the Union cause, and wore the 
uniform of Union soldiers, outnumbered, at least twice 
(I think three times), those who openly and actively 
sided with the Confederate cause. 

I observe that you call attention to certain statements 



A Foreword by Justice Harlan vii 

made after the war in a brief History of Kentucky as one 
of the American Commonwealths. Those statements 
were to the following effect : "The Confederacy received 
the youth and strength from the richest part of the Ken- 
tucky soil. The so-called Blue Grass soil sent the greater 
part of its men of the richer families into the Confederate 
army, while the Union troops, though from all parts of 
the State, came in greatest abundance from those who 
dwelt on thinner soils. . . . The Kentucky troops 
in the Confederate army being fewer in number, and 
from the richer part of the State, were, as a whole, a 
finer body of men than the Federal troops from the 
Commonwealth. " 

These statements are akin to those sometimes heard in 
1861, that the secession movement in Kentucky had the 
approval of the "gentlemen" and holders of property in 
that Commonwealth ; that, in the main, the Union cause 
had the support only of those who had no special social 
standing and were not identified with the State by own- 
ership of property to any great extent. Those who then 
lived in Kentucky and had a knowledge of its history 
and people are aware how reckless were and are all such 
statements. The Union leaders in Kentucky whose 
names are given in your book, and many others who 
might be named, constituted a body of men of whom it 
may justly be stated that, in respect of social standing, 
family history, character, education, and intellectual 
power, they could be favorably compared with any like 
number of men living at any time in any State of the 
Union. Many of them were born or were reared in 
counties popularly known as Blue Grass counties, while 
the others were, as Lincoln was, born or reared on 
"thinner soils." But, whatever the nature of the soil on 
which they were born or reared, they were of noble 
nature, gentlemen in the best sense of that word, and 
of the highest social position. No intimation to the 



viii A Foreword by Justice Harlan 

contrary will be accepted as true or just by any one who 
knew Kentucky and the Kentucky people of 1861. 

The same observations may be made in respect of the 
officers and soldiers who went into the Union army from 
Kentucky. A very large part — I will not say a majority 
— of the Kentucky Union officers and soldiers came from 
counties which, by reason of the richness of their soil, 
might be called Blue Grass counties — such as the counties 
of Jefferson, Shelby, Mason, Fleming, Fayette, Bourbon, 
Woodford, Scott, Harrison, Henry, Washington, Nelson, 
Marion, Jessamine, Mercer, Boyle, Clarke, Madison, 
Garrard, Warren, Logan, Christian, Barren, Todd, and 
Daviess. Undoubtedly the Confederate officers who 
went from Kentucky were men of high character and won 
distinction as commanders of troops. But they were of 
no higher character, certainly did not possess more skill, 
and did not win more renown than those who commanded 
Kentucky Union troops. The fact is, the Kentucky 
Union officers and soldiers and the Kentucky Confederate 
officers and soldiers were, as bodies of men, whether 
born on Blue Grass soil or on "thinner soils," the peers, 
in all respects, of the officers or soldiers of any army ever 
organized. As Kentuckians, we should be proud of the 
reputation both sides won in the Civil War for courage 
and fidelity to the cause each espoused. 

You have attempted to bring out the truth and the 
whole truth as to the contest of 1861 in Kentucky. And 
you have succeeded most admirably. By all means, my 
dear Captain, put what you have said in book form. 

Yours truly, 

John M. Harlan. 

Capt. Thomas Speed, 

Louisville, Kentucky. 



PREFACE 

IT is the purpose of the author of this book to give a 
narrative of the struggle of the Union men in the 
State of Kentucky to hold their State in the Union, 
when other States were seceding and strenuous efforts 
were made to carry Kentucky into the Southern Confed- 
eracy ; also to show what services were rendered by the 
Union soldiers of Kentucky in the Civil War. It is due 
to the Kentucky Unionists that such a narrative should 
be prepared and published. They performed a great 
work in their day for the salvation and perpetuity of our 
national Union, which was not fully understood or appre- 
ciated by many even at the time, and no effort has ever 
been made to create a better understanding. 

Histories of Kentucky have been written since the 
war, but in them injustice is done to the Kentucky 
Unionists both negatively and positively. They not 
only fail to recount matters richly deserving mention, but 
contain many misrepresentations. 

It is a remarkable fact that after the Union was 
restored the Union men of Kentucky refrained from 
writing about the events of the past. They were satisfied 
with the result. That was enough. They did not desire 
to recall and dwell upon the experiences through which 
they had passed. Therefore the story of their services 
has remained untold except in so far as it is found em- 
bedded in the records of the war and scattered through 
many volumes, documents, and current publications of all 
descriptions, practically inaccessible to the general reader. 



X Preface 

Upon this point one of the most distinguished citizens 
of Kentucky has remarked that 

" the manner in which the Kentucky Unionists relegated the 
war into the past, immediately upon its close, is nothing less 
than a phenomenon. Nothing like it can be found in any 
history. When the great fact that the Union was preserved 
became a certainty, all the Union element in Kentucky, which 
preponderated during the conflict, controlling the State and 
serving magnificently on the field, at once ceased to talk or 
think of the war, and became from that time voiceless. They 
have not only refrained from heralding their own services, but 
have also refrained from censure of those who antagonized 
them." 

In a certain sense the history of the war was written as 
it progressed. Its true history is found in the documents 
of the period, and to these original sources of information 
all should go who desire to know the exact facts. But 
the documents of the period are not accessible to all, and 
to search for them requires far more time and labor than 
can be given by general readers. In order that the facts 
they contain may be popularly known, it is the province 
of the historian to gather them together and cause them 
to tell their story in readable form. 

Much of the writing about the events of the Civil War 
rather ignores the record-facts, instead of using them. 
Many writers have endeavored to make history, rather 
than to compile it from authoritative sources. Impres- 
sions received from having lived through the war period, 
either of the writer himself or of individuals who narrate 
their impressions to him, are written down, instead of 
searching out what was written down at the time by the 
actors themselves. Thus erroneous views are often pre- 
sented. Absolute accuracy is not to be expected in 
recounting the events of the past, but in telling the story 
of the Civil War, or any particular feature of it, the best 
material to be found is that which was written at the 
time. It is common for individual participants to de- 



Preface xi 

scribe orally the campaigns and battles through which 
they passed. In every such instance, if the movements 
were of any magnitude, the relator is certain to fall into 
error, unless he has studied the case as it is found in the 
records. No one person can know much of a large battle 
from what came within the range of his own vision, and 
he is apt to magnify what he actually saw, and to mini- 
mize what he did not see. But the reports of regimental 
commanders and brigade commanders and commanders of 
divisions and corps, together with the reports of the offi- 
cers in chief command, will enable the reader to arrive at 
a clear and distinct idea of all that occurred. 

It is the same with the conduct of civil affairs. The 
speeches and writings of public men — recognized leaders 
and official characters — show their sentiments and posi- 
tions far better than the statements of misinformed or 
biassed persons, who may recount impressions instead of 
facts. Many accounts have been written to sustain a 
theory, or in support of one side or the other of a contro- 
versy. Such writing may be graphic and the work of 
one who was a participant, but, unless it is based upon 
the record-facts, it is apt to be misleading. 

A complete history of the events in the State of Ken- 
tucky, civil and military, might be written from the 
records. Such a history would give account of the good 
and the bad on both sides. So, also, the history of any 
feature of the war time in Kentucky might be written — 
as, for instance, the civil history, irrespective of the mili- 
tary, or vice versa; or an account might be given of the 
Federal troops alone, or of the Confederate troops alone, 
but in any such writing the truth is best found in the 
records of the period. 

It is from documentary sources the present writer will 
draw the facts pertaining to the Union cause in Kentucky 
during the war. While he lived through that period and 
was a participant, to some extent, in many events con- 



xii Preface 

nected with the war, it is not on that account that the 
history is proposed. What is here recorded is deduced 
from an examination of the record-sources of information. 

The writer desires to emphasize the fact that such a 
treatise as this is really called for. Much has been writ- 
ten upon the other side. Various volumes stand upon 
the shelves of the libraries written from the opposite 
standpoint, which celebrate the services and exploits of 
those Kentuckians who went into the Confederacy, and 
miserably misrepresent the Kentucky Unionists, but no 
volume has been prepared to show what was, in truth, 
done and endured and accomplished by these Kentucky 
Unionists, It is true a volume has been published giv- 
ing brief accounts of the Union regiments of Kentucky, 
but this touches but lightly the civil struggles of the war 
period. 

In view, therefore, of the fact that the Southern side 
is already represented in the libraries, and that the 
Union side is not, it is believed that there is a demand for 
the present work. 

The writer believes that the time has arrived when the 
history of the work and struggles of the Kentucky Union- 
ists may be published without calling forth any complaint 
of "opening up old controversies." Surely, after the 
lapse of forty years, they may be written about without 
incurring the criticism of reviving any bitterness of the 
past. 

The keynote of this work will be that Kentucky was a 
Union State?, that the issue was thoroughly understood, 
and that the people of Kentucky manifested their inten- 
tion to remain in the Union, and not to go into the 
Confederacy, by overwhelming majorities at the polls, at 
fair and impartial elections, untrammelled by any sugges- 
tion of military interference, for the elections occurred 
before any soldiers were in the State. Basing the con- 
duct of the people upon this unquestioned fact, it will 



Preface xiii 

be shown that the Kentucky Unionists did that which it 
was their right to do, in adhering to the Union. When 
it is charged that the Union leaders of Kentucky "played 
a dark and deceitful game," it is proper that the true 
position should be stated according to the records. It is 
stated by one writer, as late as 1882, that : 

" The history of no country, or no part or period of the late 
Civil War, presents a darker chapter than that which records 
the first six months of the war, and the means by which Ken- 
tucky was finally occupied by the Federal army, and, being 
thus bound, was claimed to be loyal, in the sense of sanction- 
ing such a policy. * ' {^Memorial History of Louisville, Vol. i , 
p. 196.) 

When the struggle of the Union leaders of Kentucky 
is thus characterized, surely it is in order to present the 
facts which repel the charge, and justify their conduct. 
When it is gravely written, in accepted histories of Ken- 
tucky, that the "flower of the military material of Ken- 
tucky went into the Confederate army," surely it is in 
order to present the record-facts of the period which 
show that the most conspicuous "rush to arms" in Ken- 
tucky was to save the Union, and not to destroy it. 

It is also proper, and in order, to present the record- 
facts which correct many misrepresentations upon other 
points found in treatises claiming to be historical. An 
adequate presentation of the case as it is found in the 
records of the period cannot fail to show that the people 
of Kentucky were true to the Union, and that they 
magnificently carried into practice the principles they 
most emphatically avowed at the polls; and the attempt 
will be made in this work to do justice to the splen- 
did body of troops, which, under trying circumstances, 
sprang forth to aid in preventing the dismemberment of 
the Union, and the destruction of the American Republic. 

Concerning the general subject of the Union cause in 
Kentucky the eloquent words penned by Gen. D. W. 



XIV 



Preface 



Lindsay in 1866, in his preface to the Adjutant-General's 
report, are here quoted : — 

" It has been fashionable with some to reflect upon the loy- 
alty of our State, but every true man must feel and cordially 
confess that Kentucky has, during the late war, under circum- 
stances far more trying than those surrounding any other State 
in the Union, discharged her whole duty. She has, at all 
times and under all circumstances, promptly responded to the 
quotas assigned her, not with the mercenary, purchased by 
excessive State or local bounty, but with citizens prompted by 
patriotism to the defence of their government. In proof of 
this, the gallant record of our State, I would refer those 
doubting to the casualty statistics of this report, the record of 
battles in which Kentucky troops have borne an honorable 
part, and lastly to the seventy-nine stand of colors, those silent 
yet eloquent souvenirs of toil and danger, now displayed in 
the Capitol of the State, to remain as evidence of the bravery 
of her sons, and as an incentive to continued patriotism and 
sacrifice wherever duty calls. Many of these flags have been 
pierced by shot and shell and their folds stained with the 
blood of their bearers, but all bearing evidence of the duty 
which Kentucky troops were expected to, and did, perform. 
Certainly no one will rejoice more than your Excellency in 
the fact that there is not a blemish upon the escutcheon of a 
single organization from Kentucky," 

The author is greatly indebted to Justice John M. 
Harlan of the Supreme Court for his painstaking reading 
of this book before publication, his numerous suggestions, 
and kindly aid in many particulars. Also to Gen. D. W. 
Lindsay of Frankfort, Ky., who served in the field, and 
also as Adjutant-General of Kentucky, and as such pub- 
lished his excellent and invaluable report, in which the 
names of all the soldiers furnished by the State appear. 

The author is also indebted to Hon. Walter Evans, 
Judge of the United States District Court for the West- 
ern District of Kentucky, who served in the 25th Ken- 



Preface xv 

tucky Infantry, and having represented his district in 
Congress, as well as in the Legislature, has a wide knowl- 
edge of the affairs of the State; to Col. R. M. Kelly, 
who served through the war and has written numerous 
accounts for the Loyal Legion Society, and for the 
Century War Book, and other publications; to Col. John 
H. Ward, a gallant officer from the "Green River 
Country" and deeply interested in everything pertaining 
to the history of Kentucky ; and also to Hon. John W. 
Barr, retired United States District Judge, who, as Major 
of State Troops, was thoroughly informed as to the most 
of the events treated of in this work; also to Col. Andrew 
Cowan, who, though not a native of Kentucky, has 
resided in Louisville since the close of the war. He was 
Colonel of Artillery in the Army of the Potomac, and 
fought his guns in all the great battles in which that 
army was engaged from Bull Run to Appomattox. A 
man of great practical wisdom and intelligence, he has 
given the writer the kindly benefit of the judgment of a 
friend contemplating the story contained in this work 
from the standpoint of a disinterested soldier and critic; 
also to James F. Buckner, Dr. Wm. Bailey, Logan C. 
Murray, L. N. Dembitz, to all of whom the author 
acknowledges his indebtedness. 
Louisville, Ky., 
November 26, 1904. 



CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Foreword v 

CHAPTER I 
Introduction i 

End of old Whig party in 1853. Know-nothing party. Oppo- 
sition party. Election of Governor and Legislature in 1859. 
Union party and its leaders. Their services, and the feeling 
against them. Their object was to save the Union, Misrepre- 
sentations. Collins's History of Kentucky. Shaler's History of 
Kentucky. Z. F. Smith's History of Kentucky. All abound in 
gratuitous statements. Object of this work is to correct misrepre- 
sentations. Some instances mentioned. 

CHAPTER n 

The Issue 16 

The issue formed in i860 between the Union and secessionists. 
Presidential election of i860. Discussion. Election of clerk of 
the Court of Appeals. Central position of Kentucky. Anxiety 
about Kentucky. The people chose the Union as against seces- 
sion. They did not agree that a State had the right to secede. 
Secession a remedy for no evil. The South did that which made 
war inevitable. Kentucky had the right to refuse to secede. 

CHAPTER in 

The Legislature 26 

The Legislature which sat in called session in the winter and 
spring of i £60-61 was elected in 1859. Called to assemble on Jan- 
uary 17, 1861. Dates of its sittings. More noted for what it did 
not do than for what it did. It did not call a convention accord- 
ing to the wishes of the Governor. Resolutions concerning 
National affairs passed the House but were not acted upon by the 
Senate. Neutrality resolution offered in lower House, Resolu- 
tion for Peace Conference passed both Houses. Other resolutions. 
Militia law amended. Adjourned sine die April 4, but called 
again to meet May 5. Secession opposition to this call. Resolu 



xviii Contents 

PAGE 

tion approving Governor's refusal to furnish troops under existing 
circumstances passed lower House. Military Board established. 
State Guards and Home Guards required to swear fidelity to Con- 
stitution of the United States. Arms provided not to be used 
against either side, but only for State protection. Next Legislature 
to meet in September. Views as to work of Legislature. Means 
by which the Legislature was prevented from favoring secession. 
Fusion of the Bell-Everett party and the Douglas party — both 
being for the Union. The work of the leaders. Their discreet 
conduct. 

CHAPTER IV 

Neutrality . , , 40 

To be understood only in the light of the time. The idea arose 
in January, 1861. Expressed in a resolution offered in the Legis- 
lature January 2q, 1861. Possibility of averting war. Position of 
John C. Breckinridge. Addresses of Border State Convention. 
The true spirit of neutrality. Address of Col. R. T. Jacob. Gov- 
ernor Magoffin's proclamation. Difference between mediatorial and 
armed neutrality. Prime object of the Unionists was to save the 
Union. Appeal of Border State Convention and names of the 
signers. Expressions of Hon. Charles A. Wickliffe and Stephen 
A. Douglas, and Tennessee Unionists. Unionists unjustly cen- 
sured. Expressions of Hon. John J. Crittenden. Lincoln felt 
that Kentucky " would be a turning weight in the scale of war," 

CHAPTER V 
Resolutions of the Union State Committee . . . -57 
Explanation of expressions indorsing the Governor's refusal to 
send troops, and as to taking sides with the South. Names of 
members of the committee. Inflammatory utterances of the day. 
War for " subjugation," as the word was used, regarded as folly. 
Extracts from speeches and writers, showing what the Southern 
people meant by " subjugation." Such subjugation never contem- 
plated by the United States, nor by the Kentucky Unionists, 
though they were determined to suppress rebellion. Crittenden 
resolution shows this. All turned on the meaning given to the 
word "subjugation." Same as to the word "coercion." Seces- 
sion would destroy the Republic, and the war was unavoidable. 

CHAPTER VI 

The Union Leaders 71 

Due that their names be given. Voting of the people indicated 
strong leadership. Those named, all prominent before the war. 



Contents xix 

PAGE 

Names. All leaders of public sentiment. Many others were asso- 
ciated with them. Gratitude due them all for the present glory of 
the American Republic. 

CHAPTER VII 

Elections in i86i 87 

Election of May 4, for delegates to Border State Convention. 
Congressional electional, June 20 — nine of the ten elected being 
Union. August election for members of the Legislature. Union 
majority between fifty and sixty thousand. Details of vote in 
Louisville. All elections untrammelled, as there were no soldiers in 
the State. They show the Union sentiment of Kentucky. But 
secession leaders not satisfied. Position of Unionists right. Men- 
tion of those elections by historians, 

CHAPTER VIII 

The "Lincoln Guns" gg 

Account given by Rev. Daniel Stevenson. Lieut. Wm. Nelson's 
visit to Louisville. Has conference at Frankfort. The bringing 
and distribution of guns. Justice Harlan's account. 

CHAPTER IX 



Abandonment of Neutrality 122 

People in advance of leaders. The independence of Kentucky 
not possible. The State Guard. Lieut. Wm. Nelson, and intro- 
duction of arms, Earlier " violation " of neutrality. Neutrality 
dated back to January. Violation in April by Confederates. 
Attitude of Confederate authorities. Confederate recruiting offi- 
cers in Kentucky in April. March from the State of Confederate 
troops in April. Confederates on Tennessee border occupying 
gaps in mountains and camps in the State. Magoffin's request to 
Lincoln to remove troops from Camp Dick Robinson. Reply. 
Shaler's view. Confederate invasion September 3. The number 
who went south from Kentucky. 

CHAPTER X 

The Rally 140 

Erroneous statements as to Kentucky Unionists. Adjutant-General 
Thomas, General Sherman. General McCook. The injustice. 
Contradiction. More troops enlisted in Union regiments in summer 
and fall of 1861 than went south during the entire war. Early 
service. Camp Joe Holt. Camp Clay. Camp Dick Robinson. 
Prompt filling of the regiments. The sections of the State formed. 
Camp Calhoun. James F. Buckner's men. Greensburg. General 
mention of early service. Organizations of 1862, 1863, 1864. 



XX Contents 

PAGE 

Batteries. Total number, including State troops. Comparison 
with numbers of Confederates. General officers. Shaler's views 
contradicted by ,the historian of First Kentucky ("Orphan") Brigade. 

CHAPTER XI 

Location of Union Sentiment 158 

General, all over the State. Invidious comparison by the his- 
torian Shaler. The Blue Grass section. The city of Louisville. 
Union Club. Home Guards. Seven Union regiments from 
Louisville and vicinity. City Council. Louisville called City of 
Flags. Patriotic work of citizens. The first district. Second 
district. Hopkinsville. Bowling Green. The Green River 
Country. Maysville district. 

CHAPTER XII 

Force Against Force 180 

Plan to take Kentucky out of the Union by force. Dr. R. J. 
Breckinridge's account. Corroboration by General Humphrey 
Marshall and Garrett Davis. The defence of the State against the 
proposed uprising. The conspirators foiled. Appearance on the 
Kentucky stage of Generals Thomas, Sherman, and Grant. In 
the fall of 1861 the way was open for all to take sides. Error 
contradicted. Resistance in western and eastern parts of the 
State. Colonels Garrard and Wolford encounter Confederates at 
Camp Wild Cat. Battle of M ill Spring. 

CHAPTER XIII 

Provisional Governmknt 200 

Secessionists beaten at the August election, 1861. Still insist on 
governing the State. Convention in the military camp at Russell- 
ville. The call by the Conference. Proceedings of the Convention 
Kentucky absolved from allegiance to the National Government. 
Committee appointed to get Kentucky admitted. into the Con- 
federacy. Form of government made for Kentucky. Power to 
make laws vested in a Governor and Council of Ten. Geo. W. 
Johnson made Governor, and ten councilmen appointed. Some 
"acts" of this legislative body. Kentucky received into the 
Confederacy. This was not secession, but revolution, according 
to Geo. W. Johnson. His bitter denunciation of the Union 
leaders. Governor Magoffin's opinion on the subject. Mention in 
the histories of Kentucky. 

CHAPTER XIV 

Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky 212 

Correctly called invasion. Conscription to be made. Also, a 



Contents xxi 

PACE 

movement for supplies. Battle of Perryville. Retreat. Wagon 
train of supplies. Bragg's and Kirby Smith's addresses. Com- 
ments of historians. Rally of Unionists to defend Kentucky. 
Killing of General Nelson. Magoffin's resignation, and James F. 
Robinson made Governor. Robinson's proclamation. Eleven 
new Union regiments formed. Rail)' to defend Louisville. The 
small number recruited by General Bragg. His disappointment. 
Removal from Frankfort by Governor Robinson soon after he was 
made Governor. Inauguration of ' ' Governor " Hawes and his re- 
moval during the ceremonies. Gen. George W. Morgan's retreat 
from Cumberland Gap. 

CHAPTER XV 

Morgan's Raid 225 

Heads of chapters in General Duke's History, showing escapes, 
retreats, and defeats, Morgan's first raid, July, 1862. The sec- 
ond raid being in connection with Bragg's invasion. Battle with 
Home Guards at Augusta. Effort to shut off retreat of Gen. Geo. 
W. Morgan. Retreat out of the State by way of Hopkinsville. 
The third raid. Col. John M. Harlan defeats Morgan at Rolling 
Fork. Retreat out of the State, pursued by Kentucky troops. 
The fourth raid, July, 1863, extending to Indiana and Ohio. The 
pursuit and capture was by Kentucky regiments, and was more 
remarkable than the raid. Surrender to "militia captain." The 
fifth and last raid, June, 1864. Came through Pound Gap. Col. 
John Mason Brown's pursuit. Fight at Cynthiana. Morgan de- 
feated. Comments on this raid. Mention of the Kentucky regi- 
ments engaged in protecting the State. 

CHAPTER XVI 
The Guerrilla Evil 242 

The officers in command in Kentucky. Burbridge. Retaliation. 
Kentucky overrun by raiding bands called guerrillas. Indiscrimi- 
nate censure of Federal officers and Federal troops. Guerrilla 
warfare authorized by Confederate Government. Governor Bram- 
lette's proclamation. The terms "guerrillas" and "partisan rangers" 
used interchangeably. Their work identical. Confederate Congress 
authorized partisan rangers. Protection of State by Home Guards. 
Extracts from the records to show who the guerrillas were. So 
injurious were they the Confederate Congress repealed the act of 
authorization except as to those serving within the enemy's lines. 
Fourteen court houses in Kentucky burned by Confederates, and one 
by carelessness of Union soldiers. Mention of guerrillas in General 
Duke's Hislory. Letter of General N. B. Forrest on the subject. 
Union soldiers were protecting the State against such outrages. 



xxii Contents 

PAGE 

CHAPTER XVII 

Hallucinations 26g 

Injustice done by questioning the loyalty of Kentucky. Claims 
that were made. Misrepresentations. Confederates loath to give 
up the idea that Kentucky would join them. Hallucination that the 
people of Kentucky did not know what they wanted. General 
Bragg's address. View of General Hodge, writing in Collin's AV«- 
tucky. Hallucination that individual rights must not be disturbed 
even in raging war. Injustice done to officers in command in 
Kentucky, while Morgan's exploits extolled. How the Confed- 
eracy treated persons not loyal to it. Davis's proclamation of ban- 
ishment. Retaliation chargeable to both sides. " Military 
interference," at the polls. Hallucination that McClellan could 
put down the rebellion better than Lincoln. Hallucination of 
Southern superiority. 

CHAPTER XVIII 

Patriotism of Kentuckv Unionists 288 

Value of their services to the country. Protecting Government 
interests in Kentucky. Importance of railroad communication. 
Protection of Government supplies at Louisville. Kentucky Union 
soldiers the same as those from any other State. Reasons Ken- 
tuckians adhered to the Union. Preservation of the Union the 
greatest achievement made by the human race. The Monroe 
Doctrine. The records tell the story of Kentucky patriotism. 

CHAPTER XIX 

The Soldiers 298 

No reason for comparison of soldierly qualities of troops on the 
respective sides. But injustice has been done to the Union soldiers 
in this particular. Shaler's views as to cavalry and infantry. As 
to the soldiers from the Blue Grass section. Statement of Col. 
Ed. Porter Thompson, the historian of the First Confederate 
Brigade. Morgan's men. Federal brigades. Lewis D. Watkins. 
E. H. Murray. Federal cavalry in the Atlanta campaign. Col. 
Charles S. Hanson. Table showing the number in the Kentucky 
regiments. Regiments at Shiloh — in Buell's march — the 15th at 
Perryville. Regiments at Stone River. At Vicksburg. At Chicka- 
mauga. At Knoxville. At Mission Ridge. The 27th at Beans 
Station. Regiments in the Atlanta campaign. On the Saltville 
expeditions. The 28th at Spring Hill. The 12th and i6th at 
Franklin. No blemish on the escutcheon of any Kentucky regi- 
ment. No troops any better. Shaler's errors. 



Contents xxiii 

PAGE 

CHAPTER XX 

State Troops and Home Guards 316 

Organized for State protection against raidings. Mention of guer- 
rillas by the historian Collins. Number and names of battalions. 
Mention by the Adjutant-General of the State. Mention of their 
engagements by Collins. Wm. H. Wadsworth commander in 
Maysville district. Mention of these troops by commanders. Un- 
founded censure. 



329 



CHAPTER XXI 

The Number Engaged 

Mistake that Confederate defeats were due to superior numbers 
against them. Examination of the claim that there were 2,700,000 
Federal soldiers, and only 600,000 Confederates. The 2,700,000 
figure represents that many enlistments, not that many soldiers, 
the number being made up by re-enlistments. The number of 
Federal soldiers about 1,700.000. The 600,000 figure has no 
foundation. Proof that there were more. Estimate based on the 
number which surrendered is valueless. The eleven seceding 
States furnished over 900,000, and to this must be added all fur- 
nished by the border States. Confederate official reports show that 
six seceded States furnished nearly 600,000 up to the close of 1863. 
The other five States and the border States brought the number up 
to over 1,000,000. This is the estimate of the historian Woodrow 
Wilson and others. 

Appendix 346 



UNION CAUSE IN KENTUCKY 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTORY 

THE last contest in Kentucky between the political 
parties known as Whigs and Democrats occurred 
in 1853. -^t the regular August election in that year five 
Whigs and five Democrats were elected to Congress; 
twenty-two Whigs and sixteen Democrats to the State 
Senate, and fifty-five Whigs and forty-five Democrats to 
the lower House. (Collins, vol. i, p. ^j.^ After this 
the Democratic party was opposed by the American or 
"Know-Nothing" party. At the August election, 1855, 
the Know-Nothing party elected the Governor, Charles 
S. Morehead, also six of the Congressmen, and a decided 
majority of the State Legislature. That party was 
short-lived. In 1859 those opposed to the Democratic 
party had no other designation than simply "the Oppo- 
sition." In 1859 Beriah Magoffin was elected Governor 
by the Democrats over Joshua F. Bell, "Opposition." 
At the same time a Legislature was elected in harmony 
with the Governor. This Governor and this Legislature 
were in office when the troubles of 1861 came upon the 
State and country. In the succeeding chapter some of 



2 Union Cause in Kentucky 

the events of the year i860, particularly the voting, will 
be shown. It is enough in this place to say that, in that 
year, the ''Opposition" party came to be called the 
"Union" party, and the Democratic party was known as 
the "Southern Rights" party. The latter party main- 
tained its old organization, but on the part of the Union- 
ists there was no organization, and in this respect they 
were at a disadvantage. The general direction and 
management of the Union party naturally fell into the 
hands of those who came to be termed "Union leaders." 
The names of a number of these will appear in this work. 
It may be here said of them, that at no time in the his- 
tory of Kentucky was there within her borders a more 
illustrious galaxy of patriots and statesmen than those 
who espoused the Union cause in 1861. They were men 
of high character, wide reputation, ability, and true 
worth. They were the thoughtful, calm, and judicial- 
minded men of the State. Some were old line Whigs, 
some had been identified with the Democratic party, but 
at this time all stood together as Unionists, and they 
were worthy of the position that was accorded to them of 
"Union leaders." 

Some eminent men espoused the Southern cause, but 
if anything can be true in history, it is true that the 
greater portion of Kentucky's chief citizens in 1861 were 
Unionists precisely as the great majority of the voters of 
the State were Unionists. Among the interesting studies 
sometimes made is that of selecting the names of the 
twelve greatest Kentuckians. In the lists so prepared 
the names of the great Unionists of 1861 liberally appear. 
If an effort should be made to determine who were the 
twelve most distinguished citizens of Kentucky in 1861, 
it would not be possible to find any who would be 
named before John J. Crittenden, James Guthrie, S. S. 
Nicholas, Chief Justice George Robertson, Robert J. 
Breckinridge, Charles A. Wickliffe, James Speed, James 



Introductory 3 

F. Robinson, Joshua F. Bell, Archibald Dixon, James 
Harlan, and William H. Wadsworth. Yet when they 
are named, another twelve appear, of like prominence: 
Garrett Davis, Joseph Holt, George D. Prentice, John 
H. Harney, Charles S. Todd, Francis M. Bristow, 
Joshua F. Speed, Joseph R. Underwood, Thomas L. 
Crittenden, Judge Henry Pirtle, Curtis F. Burnam, and 
John B. Huston. Such lists might be repeated many 
times over, all being Unionists. 

It is proper to state, in this connection, that a few 
distinguished men who allied themselves with the Union- 
ists at first, and thereby gave the weight of their influ- 
ence to set public sentiment toward the Union, after a 
time changed their minds, and supported, by their sym- 
pathy, at least, the other side. Notable among these 
was ex-Governor Charles H. Morehead, who was elected 
as a Unionist to the Border State Convention by the 
vote of May 4, 1861. On the 19th of September, 1861, he 
was arrested by the Federal authorities and confined in 
Fort Lafayette, New York. In his biography it is said : 

" The sole offence of Gov. Morehead was that he sympa- 
thized with the Southern people in their struggle for liberty; 
but not only had he committed no overt act, but he had a 
short time previous been a member of the Peace Conference, 
among the foremost councillors for conciliation and peace." 
(Collins, vol. ii., p. 388.) 

Hon. Joshua F. Bullitt, Judge of the Court of Appeals, 
was a leading Unionist. He assisted in getting arms for 
the Union men of Kentucky in the early summer of 
1861. In September he accompanied the troops which 
went out from Louisville to resist the Confederate ad- 
vance. In that fall he was especially trusted, as an 
earnest Union man, by Gen. W. T. Sherman. Later, 
however, he gave his influence to the other side. 

The work of the Union leaders was beset with difficul- 



4 Union Cause in Kentucky 

ties. Opposition to the plans and purposes of the 
Southern Rights party, which strove to carry Kentucky 
into secession, had to be made without party organiza- 
tion. The leaders had behind them, as they believed, a 
majority of the people, but it was not until the voting of 
1861 came that they could be assured of that fact. They 
were on new and untried ground, all through the early 
months of 1861, and they came upon many uncertainties 
and many surprises. The struggle, on their part, to save 
the Union from destruction was unlike anything ever 
before experienced. Suddenly they found old lines 
broken up, and from both of the old political parties 
men were joining hands in a contest that was all new. 

By the splendid services of these men the people were 
held steady against all the efforts to get up excitement 
and a frenzy that would rush them into secession. Not, 
indeed, that it appears that there was at any time any 
wavering on the part of the people in their allegiance to 
the Union; but it is in accord with natural reason that 
the influence and example of the great men who have 
been named and will be named, along with many others 
who cannot be named for want of space, had much to 
do with the firm and resolute stand of the Kentucky 
people for the Union during the crisis through which 
they passed. 

The leaders were charged by the Southern Rights men 
with being the authors of all their misfortunes, and the 
charge, in general, is true. In the contest, the Southern 
Rights advocates were defeated, and the Unionists won. 
The defeat of secession was the object for which the 
Unionists contended. But coupled with the general 
charge were criminations and epithets wholly wrong and 
wholly unjust. As a specimen of the style and nature of 
these charges, the following quotation is made from a 
letter of George W. Johnson, just after he was chosen to 
be Provisional Governor of Kentucky, in which he gives 



Introductory 5 

the reasons why Kentucky ought to be admitted into the 
Confederacy. The letter is dated Nov. 21, 1861, from 
Russellville, Ky., and is to President Davis. After pre- 
senting his case in his own way, he says : 

" This recital is made for one purpose alone, and that is to 
show that the whole body of the people of Kentucky have, in 
the last year, repeatedly avowed themselves in favor of an in- 
timate, peaceful connection of the State, by a vote of the 
people, with the Confederate States. The Union leaders 
avowed the same intention until they had organized an army 
sufficient to protect themselves against the rage of the people. 
. . . No one could have anticipated the unparalleled 
audacity and treachery of the leaders of the Union party when 
they violated their own position of neutrality and deliberately 
determined to plunge the State in war." 

As a further specimen, the following is quoted from an 
editorial of X.\iQ Louisville Courier of February 11, 1862, 
then published at Bowling Green. This paper was the 
organ of the Southern Rights party in Kentucky: 

"In an hour fraught with woe and misery to the future of 
the State, there came forth from the wrecks of the past upon 
the active theatre of the present, to resume again the councils 
of the State, such men as John J. Crittenden, Garrett Davis, 
James Guthrie, S. S. Nicholas, George D, Prentice, and a 
host of lesser satellites, whom the people had long since repu- 
diated as unworthy of their confidence. 

"At the time when the propriety of a State convention was 
being discussed and delegates being chosen by the people to 
represent them in the State convention, these men showed the 
cloven foot in attempting to engraft upon the present consti- 
tution germs of emancipation which were ultimately to spring 
up into a full harvest of their, so much coveted, result. 
Basely deceiving the people with the false cry of neutrality, 
they designedly sought this means of deluding them for a 
time, during which they might thrust their poison into the 
very vitals of their political existence. Hypocritical in their 
boasted professions of love and friendship for the South, they 



6 Union Cause in Kentucky 

greeted her with alluring smiles, while the very spirit of the 
devil was lurking in their bosoms. These bold and reckless 
leaders have played a successful game upon the people of the 
State, which for fraud, deception, and hypocrisy is without a 
parallel in the records of infamy." 

Then John J. Crittenden is individually described as 
Janus-faced; Garrett Davis as "the little, petty tool of 
despotism" ; James Guthrie "would see the people of the 
State sacrificed to utter ruin if such a step were necessary 
to subserve his own selfish purposes and intents," "and 
the same is applicable to S. S. Nicholas." And the arti- 
cle winds up by saying: 

"Freemen of Kentucky, you have been confidingly led 
into your present deplorable condition by a set of vile 
traitors." ' {Louisville Courier (at Bowling Green), Feb. 
II, 1862.] 

The high character of the men thus assailed is suffi- 
cient answer to the charges, and sufficient to prove the 
folly of such intemperate writing. Instead of words of 
blame, they should be given all the credit for doing what 
was right, at a time when it was necessary in order to 
prevent others from doing that which was wrong. Time 
has vindicated them. The right and the wrong were 
plainly visible in the day they acted, as well as at all 
times since. 

The great work which was accomplished by the Union- 
ists of Kentucky was a great task as well. The absence 
of party organization and the fact that in the Union 
party, which was formed for the occasion, were many 
who had come out from the ranks of the opposite party, 
produced much misunderstanding and confusion. But 
the issue was simple; the pole-star to guide the course 
was the Union; the danger to escape was secession. 
The Kentucky Unionists, in common with patriots every- 
where, never had to use the expression that they con- 

' See Appendix, § I, p. 336. 



Introductory 7 

tended "for what they thought was right," but could 
always say they contended for that which was right — 
then and now. 

It is a common form of speech that "if " something 
had or had not occurred, the South would have won. 
The question then arises, what would it have won? The 
answer is found in utterances common even to this day, 
"The Southern States would have won their freedom." 
Are they not now free? Is it any burden to them to-day 
to form a part of the United States? What this Union 
is now is what the Unionists of Kentucky contended for 
in 1861. 

The misrepresentations contained in the histories of 
Kentucky written since the war are very numerous, 
and seem to spring from the frame of mind which, in the 
war time and afterwards, exalted all that belonged to the 
South and regarded with contempt all that was allied 
with "Yankees." Those who desire to know about 
Kentucky during the war, and consult the histories for 
that purpose, will find three histories of Kentucky — Col- 
lins's, Shaler's, and Smith's. 

Many years before the war Lewis Collins published, in 
one volume, a history of Kentucky. Shortly after the 
war, Richard H. Collins enlarged this history to two vol- 
umes. He was engaged upon the work some five years 
and collected a mass of material of great value. A large 
part of the first volume is devoted to the Afmals of 
Kentucky. Under this head are noted briefly, on suc- 
cessive dates, the principal events in Kentucky, from the 
earliest times down to the date of publication. That 
portion which covers the period of the Civil War occupies 
sixty-five pages, and more than a thousand events are 
noted. Collins was thoroughly Southern in sentiment, 
and this plainly appears even in the entry of the most 
ordinary events. He has a sneer for the Union side and 
approval for the other. He makes the Southern side 



8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

appear fair, while condemnation falls upon the Federals. 
Annotation of events in the manner and tone of Collins 
tends to mislead any one searching for the truth. 

In the same volume, the Outline History, which covers 
the war period, was written by a Confederate officer. 
Gen. Geo. B. Hodge, a Kentucky secessionist in 1861 
who went off to the Confederacy. Instances of his 
misrepresentations will be referred to in other chapters. 

Shaler's History of Kentucky is one of the "American 
Commonwealth" series. In the preface the author says 
he "was a Unionist during the war," adding: "If injus- 
tice has been done, he can only plead in extenuation 
that he sincerely feels that the honor won by the Confed- 
erate heroes is as dear to him as the fame of those who 
were on his own side," 

As the book is perused, it will strike the reader that 
the "fame" of his own side is ill-fame, and that the 
object in view as to the other is to exalt its virtues, 
valor, and prowess. The reader will search in vain for 
any words of approval of the earnest struggle of the 
Kentucky Unionists, disorganized as they were as to 
party advantages, against the organization of the oppo- 
site party and its possession of the State government 
machinery. On the other hand the reader will learn 
that the secession strength in the State was in the 
"wealthier districts," and that it was on the "poorer 
soil" that there was opposition. (P. 232.) This state- 
ment will be shown to be incorrect, as shown by both 
the voting of 1861 and the enlistment of soldiers. 

Writing of events at the very beginning of the trouble, 
he says : 

" In a certain sense the Democratic party was now the con- 
servative party of the Commonwealth. It was the party that 
desired to maintain the existing state of institutions, against a 
faction that was decidedly revolutionary in its tendencies, in 



Introductory 9 

that it was willing to take some active measures concerning 
slavery." 

It would be difficult to find, in any history, a more 
complete reversal of the facts of the case. In the first 
place, the Democratic or Secessionist party was the 
revolutionary party. It sought to disrupt the existing 
order; take the State out of the Union, and join the 
Confederacy, and this the Union party was resisting. 
In the second place, no disposition appeared anywhere 
on the part of the Kentucky Unionists to intermeddle 
with the slavery question in any manner whatsoever. 
The only way that an anti-slavery sentiment can be 
imputed to them is to assume, as did those who antago- 
nized them at the time, that they concealed their real 
motives, were treacherous and Janus-faced, and were a 
set of "vile traitors." Other instances of injustice on 
the part of this historian will appear in the course of this 
work. 

Z. F. Smith's History is written from a purely Southern 
standpoint, and the author is content, in large measure, 
to adopt the views and statements of Shaler, from whom 
he quotes liberally. The spirit of this history is found 
in the lament that the right of revolution was not 
appealed to by the South instead of secession. He says: 

" The sovereignty of the people, original and unquestioned, 
is greater than the measure of sovereignty they delegate to 
any government, and the right of revolution for sufficient 
cause is of universal concession. On plea of this right our 
fathers justified their act of revolution and the War for Inde- 
pendence before an approving world. . . . Had the peo- 
ple of the seceding States planted themselves on the right of 
revolution as in the Colonies, and, recognizing that necessity, 
safety, and independence were paramount to States' rights, 
marched their armies across Maryland, Kentucky, and Mis- 
souri, and established their military lines upon the front borders 
of these, there is not a doubt that the soldier element would have 



lo Union Cause in Kentucky 

gone into the ranks of the Confederacy as solidly in the three 
States mentioned as in Virginia, Tennessee and Texas." 

This, he says, would have doubled the resources of the 
Southern army for supplies and controlled the Ohio and 
Mississippi rivers. But, unfortunately, the foresight of 
statesmanship, military skill, and bravery were all sacri- 
ficed to doctrinairism. Military necessity, he says, can- 
not afford to halt at abstractionism; that there never 
was a time more urgent of Napoleonic action, but "the 
etiquette of abstraction could not admit of it." 

Thus he bewails, as late as 1885, that the South did 
not adopt effective means to break up the American 
Union. Other illustrations of his views will appear in 
the course of this work. 

All of these histories abound in wholly gratuitous 
statements. They are not content to relate the facts as 
they occurred, but deal freely with general assertions 
which are nothing except opinions, and yet appearing 
upon the historic page are apt to mislead the reader who 
is not cautious. It will be seen in these pages that there 
was unusually good ground for knowing the mind of the 
Kentucky people at the beginning of the war. Two 
general elections in i860, and three in 1861, all resulting 
in the same way, ought to satisfy any reasonable mind 
that the great majority of the Kentucky people were 
opposed to the Southern movement, but instead of em- 
phasizing this fact these historians lay more stress upon 
the assertion of what the Kentucky people believed 
about the abstract or moral right of a State to secede, or 
what they believed on the subject of coercion. Also 
such assertions as that "the undoubted preference of the 
Kentucky people was that the Southern States should 
be allowed to go in peace," and that "the people clearly 
believed that both sides had left the paths of the Consti- 
tution, and that the war was essentially unconstitutional. " 

They abound also in complacent uses of the little words 



Introductory 1 1 

"if," and "had," and "but for," of which the following 
illustrations are sufficient: "If General Buell had not 
arrived on the field of Shiloh, Grant's army would all 
have been captured." "Had General Johnston lived, 
the three hours remaining would probably have served 
for the capture of the whole, the defeat of Buell, and a 
triumphant return march to the Ohio River." 

When there is such an immense fund of historic mate- 
rial pertaining to the Civil War, it discloses the animus 
of a writer when he uses space for indulging fancy, and 
dwells upon his fond imaginings of what might have been. 

It is not proposed in the present work to make a gen- 
eral history of Kentucky during the Civil War. The 
object is rather to furnish to the reader a volume which 
will serve at least to lead away from misrepresentations, 
which have so long remained unanswered, to the true and 
real sources of information — the contemporaneous rec- 
ords. In order to show what difficulties, labors, trials, 
and hardships were undergone by the Kentucky Union- 
ists, it will be necessary to recount some of the work of 
the opposite side, both civil and military. All this, 
however, will be covered briefly, in fact, in many 
instances only suggested for the reason that events in 
Kentucky, such, for instance, as Bragg's invasion, and 
the battles incident thereto, have been written about, at 
large, in many general histories. In the mention of that 
particular invasion, the main object of this author is to 
point out the fact that the people of Kentucky then 
showed their Union sentiment by enlisting in Union regi- 
ments in great numbers in response to the call of the 
Union Governor to rise and repel the invader. If there 
had been any doubt about the stand of Kentucky people, 
if they had had any inclination to join the Confederacy, 
the summer and fall of 1862 was the time that it would 
have been manifested, and it was not. So, also, with the 
raids of General John H. Morgan. They will not be 



12 Union Cause in Kentucky 

recounted in detail, as the general histories sufficiently 
set them forth, but they will be mentioned enough to 
show that whenever Morgan came into Kentucky he 
encountered the Union soldiers of Kentucky, and that 
they caused these raids to be less prolonged, destructive, 
and disastrous to the State than they would have been 
without such defence. In like manner the guerilla evil 
will be dealt with, in order to show by the records who 
the guerillas were, and that the Kentucky Unionists in 
protecting their State against them were fighting the 
authorized agents of the Southern Confederacy, who, 
being encouraged by their backing in this respect, were 
the more bold, and rendered the task of defending the 
State against them more difficult. 

The farcical proceedings in the Confederate military 
camp at Russellville in November, 1861, by which Ken- 
tucky was resolved out of the Union on paper, will be 
shown, for the reason that on this account the State was 
claimed to belong to the Confederacy, and therefore 
subject to the Confederate law of conscription. Arrange- 
ments were made by General Bragg in 1862 to enforce 
this law in Kentucky, as will be shown ; and in Decem- 
ber, 1864, Confederate General Lyon actually enforced 
it in the western part of the State, during his temporary 
presence in that section. (Collins, i., p. 150.) 

The total white population of Kentucky in i860, 
according to the census of that year, was 919,484. Out 
of this population, more than 80,000 were enlisted as 
soldiers for the Union cause. According to the best 
authorities, in the neighborhood of 25,000 went into the 
Confederate armies. The historian Shaler, in several 
places, puts the number at 40,000 (pp. 357, 384); but, as 
he says that 40,000 left the State for the Confederacy at 
the very outstart (p. 269) and afterwards fixes this num- 
ber at 35,000 (p. 282), either of which is far beyond the 
mark, his figures do not seem to have been well consid- 



Introductory 13 

ered, and the estimate given by Col. Ed. Porter 
Thompson as about 25,000 appears more reliable. 

A chapter will be devoted to the numbers engaged as 
soldiers on both sides, from all the States, in order to 
meet the oft-repeated statement that Confederate failures 
were due to "overwhelming numbers" of Federals. It 
will be seen that, according to the records, more than a 
million were engaged on the Southern side against about 
1,700,000 on the National side. Instead of "overwhelm- 
ing numbers" at any point, there was a constant demand 
everywhere for more troops. At the front, the lines far 
from base had to meet those concentrated from shorter 
distances. Along the lines of communication, small 
bodies of guards had to contend with far larger raiding 
forces. In Kentucky there was sore need for more troops 
than could be spared from the front for protection. An 
illustration of this is found in the appeal for help made 
by Col. William H. Wadsworth, of Maysville. He 
says: "My district has sent six infantry regiments to 
the Federal army, and in addition the Tenth Cavalry 
was principally raised in that district." Yet he says 
all are ordered away, "and left us naked to bands of 
mounted rebels." {War Records, series i, vol. 16, pt. 
I, p. 1 146.) 

The same conditions prevailed everywhere. The great 
battle for the Union was fought at the front, where the 
Confederates had the advantage of concentration on 
shorter lines, while the battle for protection was fought 
at the rear, where bodies of raiders would fall unexpect- 
edly upon exposed places. 

When all the facts are fairly considered under which 
the National cause was defended, and the war brought 
to a successful end, no words can do justice to the 
undaunted resolution and courage of those who, from 
1 86 1 to 1865, lent all their energies to the preservation 
of the Union. 



14 Union Cause in Kentucky 

This work has been submitted before its publication to 
the careful scrutiny of Justice John M. Harlan, of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. No man living is 
as competent to speak concerning its character for accu- 
racy as he. He was born in Kentucky and his home 
was the capital of the State. He was there associ- 
ated, up to 1861, in the practice of law with his father, 
Hon. James Harlan, also a native of Kentucky, and at 
the outbreak of the war one of her most prominent and 
honored citizens. Both father and son were leaders of 
Union sentiment. At their law office in Frankfort were 
held the councils of the Union leaders. John M. Harlan 
also became identified just at that time with Louisville, 
and there in the prime of young manhood was captain of 
one of the military companies formed for the defence of 
the city in the spring of 1861. His first service was in con- 
nection with obtaining arms for the Kentucky Unionists, 
a statement of which appears in another part of this vol- 
ume. In September, 1861, with his own company and 
others, all under command of General W. T. Sherman, 
he advanced southward as far as Elizabethtown to resist 
the advance of the Confederates on Louisville. In the 
same month he declared his purpose to raise a regiment, 
which was in camp at Lebanon in the month following. 
His regiment was a part of General Thomas's original 
division and assisted in driving Zollicoffer's troops from 
Kentucky. It participated in the great campaign against 
General Bragg. Immediately after, it was found resist- 
ing the raiding of Confederate General John Morgan. 
In all his career Colonel Harlan was conspicuous for 
earnestness and vigor. Physically and intellectually he 
stood in the very front of all the activity of the time. 
All the events of 1861 were familiar to him, and by 
reason of his close association with the chiefs of the 
Union leaders, nearly all came under his personal 
observation. 



Introductory 15 

What is set forth, therefore, in this work touching the 
civil and military affairs of the war, particularly of the 
Union sentiment, and of neutrality, and the action of 
the Legislature, can be judged by no one so well qualified 
to pass upon its accuracy as Justice Harlan. It is with 
peculiar gratification, then, that the author is enabled to 
publish a letter received from Justice Harlan written 
after he had made a careful examination of the manu- 
script. It is inserted as an Introduction at the beginning 
of the book, permission having been obtained to do so. 

It is proper to add in this connection that, in order 
further to secure accuracy, and prevent errors which 
might arise from wrong conceptions and impressions, the 
several chapters in this work have been read by others 
who were cognizant of the events dealt with. These have 
been mentioned in the preface. 

In every other way the effort is made to place the 
events of the war pertaining to Kentucky in a true light. 



CHAPTER II 

THE ISSUE 

IN the eventful period of 1 860-61 there was but one 
issue in Kentucky : Union or Secession. The year 
i860 was a Presidential year. Four tickets were in the 
field, Lincoln and Hamlin, Bell and Everett, Douglas 
and Johnson, Breckinridge and Lane. The first three 
were all Union, as opposed to disunion. The last stood 
for ultra Southern rights. Its followers avowed the right 
to secede, and the purpose to secede under certain cir- 
cumstances. Breckinridge was a favorite son of his 
native State, Kentucky. With many he seemed to be an 
idol. He was Vice-President of the United States, able, 
gifted, cultivated, eloquent, and endowed with personal 
fascinations. Kentucky had many affiliations with the 
other slave States. In the campaign of i860 the cause 
of the South was eloquently presented by the ablest 
speakers. It was freely said that the election of Lincoln 
would disrupt the Union; that secession would follow, 
and the question was, would Kentucky ally herself with 
the seceding Southern States, or remain in the Union? 
All the real and fancied wrongs of the South were duly 
proclaimed. It was urged that slaves were property like 
other property and should be treated as other property^ 
by fugitive-slave laws in the Northern States and by the 
laws of the Territories. It was declared that by the 
election of Lincoln the principles of his party would 
prevail, and thus, with equal rights destroyed and the 

j6 



The Issue 17 

Constitution "infracted," the compact would be broken, 
and nothing left to all the slaveholding States but to 
withdraw from the Union, under the doctrine of State 
rights. 

On the other hand, it was contended that, whatever 
might be the "wrongs," secession was a remedy for no 
evil; that although Lincoln were elected President, 
both houses of Congress would be opposed to carrying 
out any of the alleged extreme tenets of his party, and 
he would be powerless to do any harm to the Southern 
people, even if he were so minded. 

Long before i860 there had been discussion of the 
possible dissolution of the Union. The differences 
between the North and the South called forth from 
Jackson, when President, the words, "The Union must 
and shall be preserved." The question whether a State 
had the right to secede had been debated in societies for 
years. Upon the stone which Kentucky contributed to 
the Washington monument was engraved the sentiment 
that Kentucky, the first admitted into the Union, would 
be the last to leave it. 

But in the administration of James Buchanan there 
were events which brought to the front, in angry fashion, 
the old discussion. The troubles in Kansas, and the 
John Brown raid which occurred in 1859, greatly inflamed 
popular feeling, and the complaint of unequal rights in the 
Territories and failure to enforce fugitive-slave laws re- 
vived the threats of secession and dissolution of the Union. 

So rife became the discussion that early in i860 
"Union" meetings were held in various places in Ken- 
tucky. On January 2d one was held in Maysville, and 
on the 22d of February there was a large meeting at 
Frankfort at which it was resolved that the people of 
Kentucky were for the Union and the Constitution in- 
tact; that the Union must and shall be preserved; that 
Kentucky will redress her wrongs inside of the Union 



i8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

and not out of it. (See Collins's Annals, pp. 82 and 

83.) 

Also as early as January 6, i860, Rev. Robert J. 
Breckinridge, D.D., addressed a long and eloquent letter 
to his nephew, Hon. John C. Breckinridge, who was 
then Vice-President, upon the subject of the mainte- 
nance of the Union. Events of this sort, occurring in 
i860 before the Presidential nominations were made, 
serve to show that the subject was upon the minds of 
the people, growing out of the continued agitation of the 
question of equal rights under the Constitution. There- 
fore, after the Presidential election in November, i860, 
when Abraham Lincoln was elected, it is not surprising 
that popular feeling was intensified, and, immediately 
following, meetings were held in many places. In Col- 
lins's Annals, p. 84, it is said that from November 19th 
to December ist "Union meeings were held, usual- 
ly without distinction of party, in Frankfort, Newport, 
Hardinsburg, Brookville, Maysville, Mt. Sterling, Vance- 
burg, and other places." Also, in December, i860, 
Hon. John J. Crittenden, in the United States Senate, 
was urging compromise measures looking to the adjust- 
ment of difficulties and to avoiding the dissolution of the 
Union. It is plain, from what has been said, that in 
i860 the people of Kentucky were alive to what was the 
great question of the day, which was union or secession, 
and so positive did the union sentiment become, it after- 
wards gave the name "Union" to its party. 

This party, in the year i860, nominated as its candi- 
date for the office of clerk of the Court of Appeals 
General Leslie Combs, of Lexington. The candidates 
against him were Clinton McClarty, States' Rights, and 
R. R. Boiling, Independent. The election took place 
August 6th, at which Combs, the Union candidate, 
received 68,165 votes; McClarty, 44,942; Boiling, 10,971; 
the majority for Combs over both being 12,252, and his 



The Issue 19 

plurality over the Southern Rights candidate 23,223, 
(Collins's Annals, p. 84.) In the same year, i860, in 
November, the Presidential election took place. At this 
election Bell and Everett received 66,016 votes; Douglas 
and Johnson, 25, 644; Breckinridge and Lane. 52,836; Lin- 
coln and Hamlin, 1,366. The Douglas men and the Bell 
men and the Lincoln men were all alike Unionists, and 
their votes added together, amounting to 93,026, repre- 
sent the Union vote, as against 52,836 for Breckin- 
ridge. {CoiWnss Annals, p. 84.) These events of i860 
show that, even in that year, the issue was made up. 
The live question of the hour was union or secession, 
and it is plain that the great majority of the voters of 
Kentucky favored the Union and were opposed to 
secession. 

As the eye rests upon the map of the United States, 
the pivotal situation of Kentucky in the Civil War is at 
once seen. Kentucky was not upon the western flank, 
like Missouri; nor was it enveloped by free territory, 
like Maryland, with no natural boundary. It was cen- 
tral, and bounded along the north for seven hundred 
miles by the Ohio River, then unbridged. Kentucky was 
a slave State, and much like the States of Virginia and 
Tennessee in the character and sentiments of her people. 

In the division which took place in 1860-61 there were 
many natural reasons for the Kentucky people to side 
with the South, and, in the look to her at that time, 
there was intense anxiety. Her decision was fraught 
with weighty consequences. As she did not join in the 
Southern movement the advantages to the cause of the 
Union were manifest in the results which followed. If 
the decision had been different the results can only be a 
matter of conjecture, but the difificulties of suppressing 
the rebellion would certainly have been enhanced. 

It is possible, though not at all certain, that an act of 
secession, however brought about, might have carried 



20 Union Cause in Kentucky 

the people with it. An illustration of this is found in 
the career of General Robert E. Lee, who was for the 
Union until his State seceded and then he followed his 
State. Whatever might have been the temper of the 
Kentucky people under such circumstances, it was a 
cause for rejoicing, on the one hand, that secession was 
not adopted, and, to the other side, a matter of sore 
disappointment. 

As Kentucky was a slave State, it seemed to be ex- 
pected by the seceding States that she would, without 
fail, unite with them in the Southern Confederacy. This 
expectation led to much urgency and earnest solicitation 
on the part of the seceding States. Strong arguments 
were presented, and all the inducements offered, but with- 
out avail. The records of the period do not show that 
any outside influences were brought to bear to help out 
the Kentucky Unionists. It would seem that the lead- 
ers of the Union cause in Kentucky were regarded as 
sufficient for the occasion. No abler men in the country 
could have been found to champion the cause than were 
then exerting all their energies in the State, and they 
were left to fight out the battle without aid. 

It is a plain proposition that the people of Kentucky, 
with a clear and intelligent perception of the situation, 
deliberately rejected secession, and firmly resolved to 
remain in the Union. This has been agreed to by the 
historians, and it was established by the voting of i860 
and 1 861, which voting of 1861 will be fully detailed. 
Yet the grossest injustice has been done to them, and 
especially the leaders, by charges of duplicity, and even 
treachery, in the practical carrying out of their repeat- 
edly expressed wishes, and in defeating the persistent 
efforts to frustrate their will. 

It is stated in Collins's History of Kentucky {yo\. i., 
p. 333) that "A vast majority of the people of the State 
were devoted to the cause of the Union." That is true. 



The Issue 21 

It is proved by the voting and the volunteering. The 
statement on the next page, however, is not true. There 
are no grounds whatever for saying : — 

** But it must not be less clearly apparent to the observer 
that a decided majority of her people believed honestly in the 
abstract right to secede, and a vast majority were firmly op- 
posed to the attempt to coerce the people of the State to remain 
under the control of a federative government which had be- 
come unacceptable to them." 

There is no authority for this statement. It is simply 
an assertion. It is demonstrated by the voting that the 
people were Union in sentiment, but there is no ground 
for saying they believed in State supremacy; there is no 
evidence of it and no way to prove it. The same writer 
complacently says that nearly all Kentuckians held 
firmly, as a cardinal principle, the doctrine of the Resolu- 
tions of 1798, that a State had the right to withdraw from 
the Union, and that it was a crime to attempt to compel 
the State to remain a part of the United States. 

By this ingenious assertion of a thing which was never 
proved and not susceptible of proof, the effort is made 
to show that the Kentucky people sided with the States 
which actually seceded, although they might hold that 
the movement was "unwise and ill-advised." It is the 
oft-asserted claim that, while the Kentucky people refused 
to secede themselves, they supported in sentiment those 
who did secede, which claim was not only folly but abso- 
lutely untrue. The evidence upon the subject estab- 
lishes exactly the contrary proposition. The Unionists 
of Kentucky repeatedly based their opposition to seces- 
sion upon the saying which became proverbial in i860 
and 1 861 that "secession is a remedy for no evil, but an 
aggravation of all." They saw this as clearly as the 
people of any State in the Union. To say that they 
believed in secession as a right, admits that they had. 



22 Union Cause in Kentucky 

information on the subject, and so they had. They had 
heard the question discussed. The Resolutions of 1798 
were familiar to them, but when the moment came for 
the actual exercise of the claimed right they turned away 
from it, as a remedy for nothing and the greatest evil 
that could befall the country. They understood that a 
union had been formed whereby the United States 
passed out of a confederation into a union and that it 
was never contemplated that any one State could, at 
will, destroy the whole fabric. In addition to this, they 
understood the reasons against secession with a peculiarly 
clear perception. The people of 1861 had heard their 
fathers tell of the early troubles, about the navigation of 
the lower waters. The only outlet of the State, in the 
early days, was the Mississippi River. If there were 
obstacles in that navigation it vitally affected all the pros- 
pects of Kentucky. If the country at the mouth of that 
river was controlled by Spain, or France, or England, 
free communication with the sea was cut off. All this 
was familiar to Kentuckians. 

Now, if the State of Louisiana could withdraw from 
the Union and set up an absolutely independent govern- 
ment and take its place as one in the family of nations, 
which was the claim of secession, then it could enter into 
alliance of any kind it saw fit with any foreign power, 
and thus the interests of all who depended upon the 
navigation of the Mississippi might be affected, and so 
much affected as to destroy them hopelessly. It is an 
imputation upon the intelligence of any people to say 
they believed that the State of Louisiana had the right 
to so jeopardize the whole country of the Mississippi 
Valley. The entire recklessness of the scheme of seces- 
sion was understood by the people. In every town and 
village in the State there were men of thought and 
sound sense who, by writing and speaking and in conver- 
sation, presented the ruinous consequences of secession. 



The Issue 23 

and the results were shown at the polls. Notwithstand- 
ing the efforts to fire the popular heart with the portrayal 
of the "wrongs" by the North upon the South, the con- 
clusion remained that secession was a remedy for no evil, 
but an aggravation of all. 

The same recklessness of statement is found in Collins 
(p. 349) where it is asserted that all the dire predictions 
made of the barbarous intentions of the National govern- 
ment were fulfilled when the rebellion was crushed. The 
language is; — 

" In April, 1865, the war ceased with the entire and com- 
plete subjugation ot the South, All that the States* Rights 
men had prophesied would be accomplished if unresisted, all 
that the Union men had indignantly denied to be the objects 
of the war, was accomplished. The South was conquered, the 
slaves were freed, and negro political equality recognized 
throughout the nation." 

Thus the effort is made to have the historic page perpet- 
uate the double falsehood that the Unionists brought on 
the war, and then carried out all that was predicted. 

In the course of this work quotations will be made of 
what had been prophesied by the States' Rights men, 
and the reader of to-day can determine, as he contem- 
plates the Southern States at present and for years past, 
whether the direful predictions were fulfilled. 

With an overweening confidence in their military 
prowess, the Southern States did that which necessarily 
and inevitably produced war. These States set them- 
selves up as independent territory, open to alliances of 
any and all kinds with foreign powers. This of itself, if 
tolerated, was a death-blow to the American Republic. 
They, also, forcibly and otherwise, took possession 
of all the property belonging to the United States 
within their limits. This of itself was enough to 
cause the Government to resort to force or else ac- 



24 Union Cause in Kentucky 

knowledge itself too weak to look after its own interests.' 

In the course of the war it became apparent that one 
of the sources of strength in the South was the ownership 
of the negroes. Therefore, they were liberated. This 
was one of the consequences of the war. 

The harmful results of the war, ending as it did, may 
all be catalogued, and even exaggerated ; but let it be sup- 
posed the Federal troops had been overcome, and the 
Confederacy established, where could be found a genius 
so stupendous for folly as to be equal to the task of so 
portraying the consequences, even in imagination, as to 
make conditions better than now exist? Imagination 
might picture how deplorable they would be, but it 
would be impossible to conceive of a broken-up republic 
giving to the inhabitants of this land the blessings and 
the prosperity and the honor and credit which they now 
enjoy. 

It is plain, therefore, when the people of Kentucky, in 
their meetings of all sorts, resolved that secession was a 
remedy for nothing, but an aggravation of all evils, that 
it was subversion of order and a step towards anarchy, 
and when they cast their suffrages for the Union, they 
had a clear perception of the real situation, and a clear 
understanding of the issue that was before them and the 
whole country. 

The same writer, upon the assumption that the politi- 
cal faith of the Kentucky people was the doctrine of the 
Resolutions of 1798, that "each State was the final judge 
of the remedies it would pursue when aggrieved by the 
action of the Federal government," goes on to say: 

"Basing upon that principle of political faith and upon that 
other principle which had become a political axiom, that no 
government ought to exist save by consent freely given of the 
governed, they almost unanimously drew the corollary that 

' See Appendix, § 2, p. 



The Issue 25 

when the people of a State became convinced that the Federal 
Union no longer protected them and guarded their rights they 
had, as a State, an unchallengeable right to withdraw from it." 
(Collins, i. p. 336.) 

This quotation is made to show that even Confederate 
writers (the author of the quotation was a Kentucky 
secessionist and a general in the Confederate army) con- 
cede that the people have some rights, that it is a politi- 
cal axiom that government ought to be with the consent 
of the governed ; and yet, although the Kentucky people 
were Unionists by a "vast majority," and voted to stay 
in the Union, and against going out of it, still the 
Southern leaders vilified them and their leaders, and 
applied bitter epithets to them, and endeavored to treat 
them as without any rights at all, when the effort to drag 
the State into secession proved abortive. 

Surely, if it could be true that the State had the right 
to withdraw from the Union at will, it must be true that 
it had the right to refuse to do so; yet when the issue 
was up and discussed, and plainly understood, and de- 
cided in favor of the Union, the friends of the Confeder- 
acy in Kentucky went South and did all in their power 
to place their own State in a false position, and actually 
went through the form of declaring on paper that Ken- 
tucky was out of the Union and a member of the 
Confederacy. 

It is proper, and it is due to the memory of the great 
men who led the hosts of Kentucky Unionists in the 
troubled times of the Civil War, that the records of the 
circumstances under which they acted, now existing only 
in scattered form, should be consecutively narrated so 
that they may be known to all general readers. 



CHAPTER III 

THE LEGISLATURE 

IN order to understand the events of the winter and 
spring of 1861, the character and work of the Legis- 
lature which sat in the months of January, February, 
April, and May must be borne clearly in mind. The 
members of that Legislature had been elected in the year 
1859. Therefore, they were elected before the question 
of union or disunion actually came up, as it did in i860 
and 1861. It was not until the Presidential nominations 
were made in i860 that the question became a serious 
one. The nomination of Lincoln and the possibility of 
his election brought out distinctly the threat of secession. 
In the speeches of that campaign it was declared the 
Southern States would withdraw from the Union if Lin- 
coln should be elected, and it became a matter of anxious 
inquiry what would Kentucky do in that event? 

Soon after the November election, at which Lincoln was 
elected, South Carolina seceded. In the same month, De- 
cember, the Governor of Kentucky called a special session 
of the Legislature to meet January 17, 1861. His message 
to that body showed unmistakably his secession proclivi- 
ties. He declared that the verdict of the election in No- 
vember was a deliberate expression of the purpose of the 
North to administer the government detrimentally to the 
South ; that Kentucky will not submit to inequalities in the 
Union, and the question is, what will be the attitude of 
Kentucky? He mentioned the fact that Virginia and Ten- 
nessee had referred the whole subject to the people, and 
said : 

26 



The Legislature 27 

" I therefore submit to your consideration the propriety of 
providing for the election of delegates to a convention to be 
assembled at an early day, to which shall be referred for full 
and final determination the future of Federal and interstate 
relations of Kentucky." 

He further said : 

" Kentucky will not be an indifferent observer of the force 
policy" that "the seceding States have not, in their haste and 
inconsiderate action, our approval, but their cause is our right 
and they have our sympathies. The people of Kentucky will 
never stand by with arms folded while those States are strug- 
gling for their constitutional rights and resisting oppression, 
or being subjugated to an antislavery government"; that "the 
idea of coercion, when applied to great political communities, 
is revolting to a free people, contrary to the spirit of our insti- 
tutions, and if successful would endanger the liberties of the 
people. ' ' {^House Journal. ) 

He also urged the necessity for arming, equipping, and 
providing munitions of w^ar for the "State Guard." 

He also desired the Legislature to declare its uncondi- 
tional disapprobation of force in any form against the 
seceded States. The tone of the message indicates a 
confident feeling that all that was asked would be 
granted. It appeared then that it might reasonably be 
regarded as certain that the "Southern Rights" sentiment 
would predominate in the Legislature. It had elected 
John C. Breckinridge to the United States Senate over 
Joshua F. Bell, by a vote of 8i to 52. The Unionists 
had but little hope, and were extremely anxious. Al- 
though the people had voted in the August election, 
i860, and in the November election, i860, against the 
Southern movement, no one could tell what impression 
actual secession had made upon their minds. Further- 
more, if they were called upon to vote for delegates to a 
Sovereignty convention, great excitement and possible 
violence might be expected. The views of the Unionists 



28 Union Cause in Kentucky 

were expressed by George D. Prentice in the Louisville 
Journal, that it was unnecessary to consider the question 
of secession ; that secession was not necessary, but adher- 
ence to the Union was; that hasty and inconsiderate 
action would be contrary to the Constitution and simply 
revolutionary. In this he was supported by the Gov- 
ernor's own words in his message, where he said, "The 
hasty and inconsiderate action of the seceding States has 
not our approval." In other words, the calling of a 
Sovereignty convention "at an early day" would itself 
be, and would also lead to, hasty and inconsiderate 
action, which was not desirable. Under these conditions 
of hope and fear and uncertainty the Legislature met, 
January 17, 1861. Its sittings that winter and spring 
were as follows: — 

From January 17th to February nth, when there was 
an adjournment to the 20th of March. 

On March 20th it reassembled and sat until April 4th, 
when it adjourned without day. 

The Governor very promptly called another special 
session for May 6th, on which day it assembled and sat 
until May 24th, when it adjourned and its work was at an 
end. 

From that time until September 2d there was no 
Legislature. On that day another Legislature came 
in which had been elected at the preceding August 
election. 

What was done by the Legislature which sat in the win- 
ter and spring of 1861, and on which so much depended? 
The only answer is, practically nothing, considering 
the momentous issues at stake. Memorable as the occa- 
sion was, that body is far more noted for what it did not 
do than for what it did. The main object for which it 
was assembled was to provide for a convention to consider 
secession, but no convention was called. Nor was there 
any act, or joint resolution, passed on the subject of 



The Legislature 29 

neutrality or coercion, which were also the themes of the 
hour. 

The historians have conveyed the idea that neutrality 
was adopted by the Legislature, but this is error. Shaler 
in his history says : 

"The Legislature of Kentucky caught this universal 
will of the citizens for neutrality, and proceeded to shape 
its action accordingly." 

This would indicate legislative action, but there was 
none that had the approval of both houses so as to be- 
come the act of the Legislature. 

On the 2ist day of January Hon. Geo. W. Ewing 
introduced resolutions in the lower House, of which he 
was a member, the first of which expressed regret that 
the States of New York, Ohio, Maine, and Massachusetts 
had, by their Legislatures, tendered men and money to 
be used in coercing the seceded States. The second 
requested the Governor to notify the executives of those 
States that whenever armed forces were sent for the pur- 
pose of forcing the people of the South to the extremity 
of submission or resistance, "the people of Kentucky, 
uniting with their brethren of the South, will, as one 
man, resist such invasion of the soil of the South, at all 
hazard, and to the last extremity." These resolutions 
were adopted only by the lower House. 

The historian General George B. Hodge, who was a 
member of that Legislature and went into the Confed- 
eracy, writing in Collins's History of Kentucky, is wholly 
misleading in his mention of these resolutions, conveying 
the idea that they were adopted by the Legislature. ( Col- 
lins, I, 341.) The truth is, they passed the lower House 
of the Legislature only, and were not acted upon at all by 
the Senate (Collins, i, 86) [House Journal, 1861, p. 69). 
On the 25th day of January a joint resolution was 
passed favoring an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States and the calling of a convention from the 



30 Union Cause in Kentucky 

various States for the consideration of such an amend- 
ment. Also, on the 29th of January, a joint resolution 
was passed appointing commissioners to the peace con- 
ference to be held at Washington. The commissioners 
appointed were General \Vm. O. Butler, James B. Clay, 
Joshua F. Bell, Charles S. Morehead, Charles A. Wick- 
liffe, and James Guthrie. (Acts 1861, 47.) These 
were all distinguished and able men. The conference was 
composed of such men from twenty-one States, and sat 
from February 4th to February 27th, but accomplished 
nothing. 

On the 29th day of January Hon. R. T. Jacob intro- 
duced a resolution in the lower House, of which he was 
a member, upon the subject of neutrality, which had at 
that early date come to be popular. The resolution was: 

"That the proper position of Kentucky is that of a 
mediator between the sections, and that as an umpire she 
should remain firm and impartial in this day of trial to 
our beloved country, that by her counsels and mediation 
she may aid in restoring peace and harmony and broth- 
erly love throughout the land." 

That was the idea of neutrality indorsed by the Union- 
ists of Kentucky, but no action was had upon the 
resolution. 

Then, upon the nth of February, joint resolutions 
were passed under the following title: — "Resolutions 
declaring further action by the Legislature on political 
affairs unnecessary and inexpedient at this time." 

The resolutions were as follows : 

" Resolved by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth 
of Kentucky: 

" That the people of Kentucky view with the most lively 
apprehension the dangers that now environ the Union and 
threaten its perpetuity; 

" Resolved, That we appeal to our Southern brethren to stay 
the work of secession, to return and make one mighty effort 



The Legislature 31 

to perpetuate the noble work of our forefathers, hallowed by 
the recollection of a thousand noble deeds; 

" Resolved, That we protest against the use of force or coer- 
cion by the general government against the seceding States as 
unwise and inexpedient and tending to the destruction of our 
common country." 

The next and last resolution of the series favored the 
calling of a National convention to amend the National 
Constitution, and concluded with these words: 

"It is unnecessary and inexpedient for this Legislature to 
take any further action on this subject at the present time, and, 
as an evidence of the sincerity and good faith of our proposi- 
tions for an adjustment, and our expression of devotion to the 
Union and desire for its preservation, Kentucky awaits with 
great solicitude the responses from her sister States. 

On the 4th of April the Legislature passed an act to 
amend the militia law, the only section of which that it is 
important to mention provided that any member of the 
State Guard shall have the right to withdraw therefrom 
without the consent of any officer. 

On that day, April 4th, the Legislature adjourned, but 
it was called in special session again May 6th. Between 
these two dates Fort Sumter was fired upon and Presi- 
dent Lincoln called for 75,000 troops and the Governor 
of Kentucky rudely responded, refusing to comply with 
the call for the quota due from Kentucky. 

The Legislature meeting after such exciting events was 
expected to act in some resolute and positive manner, 
but nothing was done in any way looking towards seces- 
sion. On the contrary, the influence of the Unionists 
became more apparent than at the former sessions. 

That there was not harmony in the counsels of those 
who favored secession is apparent from a letter, which is 
found in the records, from General Humphrey Marshall 
to Governor Magoffin, written from Virginia March 23, 
1862. General Marshall, having left Kentucky for the 



32 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Confederacy, wrote to Governor Magoffin, rebuking his 
failure to take action in 1861 and suggesting that, even 
at that date, March, 1862, ** circumstances offered a new 
and favorable opportunity to appeal successfully to the 
people of Kentucky." 

Referring to the spring of 1861, he says: 

"You cannot fail to remember the pertinacity with 
which I urged you not to call that extra session of the 
Legislature which stripped you of power, and actually 
usurped your constitutional functions of commander of 
the military forces of the State." 

General Marshall was an active promoter of secession, 
and, in the summer of 1861, before complaints were made 
of the Unionists going into camp at Camp Dick Robin- 
son, had organized in Owen County quite a force in the 
interests of the South, which followed him out of the 
State in the fall of 1861. In his pertinaciously advising 
against the calling of the extra session of the Legislature 
for May 6th "he doubtless acted in concert with others 
like himself who had lost all hope of getting favorable 
action from that Legislature and proposed to proceed 
independently of it. 

At the May session. May i6th, resolutions were passed 
by the lower House: 

"That this State and the citizens thereof should take no 
part in the civil war now being waged, except as mediator and 
friends to the belligerent parties, and that Kentucky should, 
during the contest, occupy the position of strict neutrality. 

" Resolved^ That the act of the Governor in refusing to fur- 
nish troops or military force upon the call of the executive 
authority of the United States, under existing circumstances, is 
approved. ' ' 

While these resolutions were adopted by the House, 
there was no concurrence by the Senate, and therefore 
they only reflected the mind of the one body. 



The Legislature 33 

It will be observed that, in both resolutions, the lan- 
guage is very guarded — the first provides for mediatorial, 
not armed, neutrality ; and the second approves the 
refusal by the Governor to furnish the troops ''under 
existing circumstances. 

What these circumstances were will be more fully 
shown in the two chapters following, but they were, in 
substance, that a popular stand had been taken in favor 
of neutrality, and to furnish troops would be inconsistent 
therewith. It was the same position as that taken by 
the Union State Committee in April, approving the 
Governor's refusal upon the ground that the present 
duty of Kentucky is to remain neutral. In both in- 
stances there was a wise, sensible, and patriotic motive, 
as will be shown, there being a possibility at that time 
that if Kentucky did not ally herself with the seceding 
States this might be such a turning weight in the scale 
as to avert the actual calamity of war. But this expres- 
sion, as stated, was only by the lower House, there 
being no joint action by the Senate. 

At this session two very significant acts were passed. 
On the 24th of May it was enacted that the State should 
be armed. For that purpose a "military board" was 
constituted, consisting of Governor Magoffin, Samuel Gill, 
George T. Wood, General Peter Dudley, and John B. 
Temple. 

The majority of this board were Unionists. It was 
authorized to borrow $1,600,000 for the purchase of arms 
and munitions of war to be furnished equally to the 
Home Guard companies and the State Guard companies. 
The importance of this appears when, as will be hereafter 
shown, the State Guard organization was largely in 
sympathy with the South, while the Home Guards were 
Unionists. 

The act also provided that the members of the State 
Guard companies as well as of the Home Guard companies 



34 Union Cause in Kentucky 

should take the same oath as the officers, requiring fidel- 
ity to the Constitution of the United States. 
The act further provided : 

" That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to author- 
ize said board or any of the military organizations created by 
the militia laws of the State to use in any wise the arms and 
munitions of war herein authorized to be purchased, or those 
already belonging to the State, against the government of the 
United States, nor against the Confederate States, unless in 
protecting our soil from unlawful invasion — it being the inten- 
tion alone that said arms and munitions of war are to be used 
for the sole defence of Kentucky." (Acts 1861.) 

The other significant act was that the next sitting of 
the Legislature should be on the first Monday in Sep- 
tember, instead of the January following. It thus ap- 
pears that, contrary to the expectations of both sides, 
the Legislature which had been elected in 1859, ^"^ 
was supposed to be of like political complexion with the 
Governor, passed away without bringing upon the State 
any complications. The members were so evenly divided 
in sentiment that they could do nothing radical. The 
general result was bitter disappointment to the Governor 
and a cause of rejoicing to the Unionists, who believed 
that they were in the majority in the State, and that they 
would certainly elect a Union Legislature at the ensuing 
August election, which was done by a great and over- 
whelming majority. 

General Hodge, writing in Collins's History of Ken- 
tucky, referring to the expression of opinion of the 21st 
of January already mentioned, and speaking of the entire 
work of that Legislature sitting in the winter and spring 
of 1 861, says: 

"Beyond this expression of opinion the Legislature 
declined to go." 

He further says: 



The Legislature 35 

" The Legislature had done nothing to prepare the State 
for the awful ordeal which was before her, save to provide a 
few arms, half of which were distributed to the State Guard 
and subsequently passed into the Southern armies, and half of 
which were distributed to Home Guards and were used exclu- 
sively in aid of the Federal government; and yet in no delibe- 
rative or parliamentary body in the whole country had the 
exciting questions of the day been more earnestly or more 
fully discussed." (Collins, i. 341.) 

As there could be no secession of Kentucky without 
the calling of a convention by the Legislature, and as 
the danger had passed, it is interesting to inquire by what 
means and instrumentalities did the Kentucky Unionists 
not only save their State from secession, but also from 
even the first step in that direction. 

To accomplish the result of having that Legislature pass 
through all its meetings without doing the specific thing 
for which Governor Magoffin assembled it, called for 
the highest exercise of patriotic effort on the part of the 
best and wisest men of the State, irrespective of party 
affiliations. 

The Bell and Everett party and the Douglas party 
joined hands. Each arranged to meet in convention in 
Louisville on the 8tli day of January, 1861. The two 
conventions met on that day. The delegates of the Bell 
party were called to order by Judge William F. Bullock, 
of Louisville, and John B. Huston, of Clark County, was 
made temporary chairman. The permanent chairman 
was John L. Helm. Conspicuous in the meeting were 
Hon. Garrett Davis, of Paris; Judge Warner L. Under- 
wood, of Bowling Green; George H. Yeaman, of Owens- 
boro; Joshua F. Bell, of Danville; J. M. Shackelford, 
of Madisonville; W. C. Goodloe, of Lexington; Alfred 
Allen, of Breckinridge County ; Phillip Swigert, of Frank- 
fort ; General Leslie Combs, of Lexington ; W. R. 
Grigsby, of Nelson ; John H. McHenry, of Owensboro; 



36 Union Cause in Kentucky 

R. J. Browne, of Springfield; Henry Grider, of Bowling 
Green; Colonel Thomas L. Crittenden, and Judge Zach- 
ariah Wheat, of Columbia. Speeches were made by a 
number of these distinguished men, all breathing a spirit 
of devotion to the Union, and deprecating the Southern 
movement. While many blamed the "fanaticism" of 
the North, all united in the sentiment that all wrongs 
could be redressed in the Union. The National flag was 
displayed, and the music of The Star -Spangled Banner 
aroused the greatest enthusiasm. A committee on reso- 
lutions was appointed, which reported the following day, 
and on the next day following, the convention, conjointly 
with the convention of the Douglas followers, in session 
at the same time, adopted the resolutions reported. 

There were many notable men in the convention of 
Douglas men. Prominent among them were ex-Gov- 
ernor Charles A. Wickliffe, ex-Governor Archibald Dixon, 
Col. William P. Boone, Joshua F. Bullitt, Thomas L. 
Jones. 

The resolutions placed the highest estimate on the 
Union. The election of Lincoln was not a cause for 
dissolution. The efforts of Governor Crittenden for re- 
moval of difficulties, and adjustment of differences, were 
commended. 

Governor Helm in his speech urged that "we cling to 
the Union as long as it exists, and resolve that it never 
be destroyed." 

Hon. Garrett Davis, in a speech, asked, "Will you 
preserve the Union or rush into the vortex of revolution 
under the name of secession?" Hon. J. F. Bell said, 
"Let us offer everything we can to avert the torrent of 
evil, but let us always stand ready to support our rights 
in the Union" ; that "the State is deeply and devotedly 
attached to the Union." 

The fusion of these two large elements of the people 
of Kentucky made a deep impression. They had polled 



The Legislature 37 

at the November, i860, election, two thirds of the vote 
of the State, and now they clasped hands in the one 
supreme task of saving the State from rushing into 
secession. The echoes of the Louisville conventions did 
not die away for many days afterwards. In all parts of 
the State meetings were held, approving their spirit and 
resolutions. 

The expressions in the resolutions of some of these 
meetings were very strong, declaring that the election of 
Lincoln was no cause for dissolving the Union ; that the 
President should see that the laws were executed, by 
force, if necessary; that secession was a remedy for no 
evil ; that the Union was dear to all and the only safety ; 
that if any fighting was to be done it should be done in 
the Union. 

A true idea of the attitude of the Unionists may be 
gathered from a speech made by Hon. J. T. Boyle, in 
Lincoln County, early in January. General Boyle was 
not only a Unionist, but proved his faith by service after- 
ward in the field. He said in the speech referred to: 

" There can be no benefit or advantage, no civil or political 
right, no interest of any kind whatever, secured by govern- 
ment in this Southern Confederacy, which you do not now 
enjoy under the blessed Union formed by our fathers. On 
the other hand, this Utopian Confederacy can never give 
Kentucky the security of life and liberty, and peace and 
property, which we now enjoy; but it must entail upon us not 
only all the real and pretended evils which now exist and 
which we endure, and all these accumulated ten times over, 
with hundreds of evils and wrongs not dreamed of and which 
we will never experience if we abide by our glorious Union. 
What, then, should Kentucky do in this crisis ? In my opin- 
ion, we should stand by the Star Spangled Banner and chng 
to the Union." 

But the Unionists of Kentucky were placed in a most 
trying and delicate position. It would have been suicidal 



38 Union Cause in Kentucky 

fc them to have used expressions, in speeches or resolu- 
tions, which would have been interpreted to mean com- 
plete accordance with all that was so abundantly charged 
against the Northern people. If they had not been discreet, 
all would have been lost. A clue to the situation is 
found in the words of Joshua F. Bell, in his speech Jan- 
uary 8th at Louisville: "Let us offer everything we can 
to avert the torrent of evil, but let us always stand ready 
to support our rights in the Union." 

The Unionists, therefore, did nothing to aggravate the 
opposite party. They left hard speeches to them, and 
sought by conciliatory words to save their State from 
secession and the country from anarchy. They honestly 
joined in objecting to the views of Northern extremists 
and in declaring that, if the Northern people entered 
upon such a crusade against the South as was outlined 
by the fierce and fiery orators of the day and proclaimed by 
the Southern press, they would join hands in resisting. 
But they endeavored to allay such wild apprehensions and 
to keep before the public the great and inestimable value 
of the Union, and never ceased to declare that secession 
was a remedy for no evil. 

The crisis brought to the front the great men of the 
State. Business considerations were laid aside. Old 
age and infirmity were overcome by energy. Men of 
weight and influence did not spare themselves nor their 
means. They travelled from place to place and addressed 
the people on all sorts of occasions. They made sacrifices 
of ease and comfort, and, with the most unsparing dili- 
gence and activity, strove to hold Kentucky in the 
Union. The splendid work of the Union leaders, from 
one end of the State to the other, through the winter and 
spring of 1861, deserves to be remembered with gratitude 
by all who, at this day and in all future years, enjoy the 
benefits of the beneficent government of the United 
States. 



The Legislature 39 

It was the wise and discreet conduct of the Union 
leaders which prevented precipitate action in the Legis- 
lature. There was a small majority of Union men in the 
Senate, but the House was about equally divided ; there- 
fore strong and positive utterances might have influenced 
some of the members. It has been said by one writer 
that: 

" The balance of power in each house was held by a small 
number of men who were opposed to secession but unwilling 
to take any active measures for the support of the govern- 
ment, and, throughout the three successive sessions of this 
Legislature during the winter and spring, care had to be 
taken not to drive these men to the disunion side." (R. M. 
Kelly in Union Regiments of Kentucky.^ 

He also says : 

" The Union men believed the new Legislature to be elected 
in August would be more favorable to the government, and 
were fighting for time. Popular pressure was brought to bear 
on both sides. No sooner would delegations of secessionists 
appear in Frankfort than the telegraph would summon Union 
men from all parts of the State." 

The result was that there was no action by this Legis- 
lature upon the matters which were uppermost in the 
minds of all, except the act for the regulation of the 
militia, which has been mentioned. In order to have 
legislative action it must be the work of both houses, 
and except the act mentioned there was none, and no 
joint resolution was passed. 



CHAPTER IV 

NEUTRALITY 

NEUTRALITY in Kentucky cannot be understood 
without a fair consideration of all the circum- 
stances. It should not be judged in the light which 
shines back upon it from subsequent events, but in the 
light of the time when it was born, and it must be re- 
membered that its birth antedated actual hostilities by 
at least two months. Four States had passed ordinances 
of secession before the end of January, 1861, but in that 
month there was no organized Confederacy and no cer- 
tainty that there would be a war. In that month of 
January, 1861, the idea of Kentucky standing neutral in 
the event of war first began to be considered by leading 
men who were ardently devoted to the preservation of 
the Union. On the 17th of January the called session of 
the Legislature assembled, and on the 29th of January 
Hon. R. T. Jacob, a member of the lower House, 
brought in a series of resolutions, the third of which was 
as follows: 

" That the proper position of Kentucky is that of mediator 
between the sections, and that as an umpire she should remain 
firm and impartial in this day of trial to our beloved country, 
that by her counsels and mediation she may aid in restoring 
peace and harmony and brotherly love throughout the entire 
land.' 

This was an apt expression of the sentiment of the 
most prominent public men of the State, excepting, of 
course, those who favored secession. 

40 



Neutrality 41 

The feeling at that time was that war was possible, 
but that it might be averted. It was precisely the feeling 
which animated the assembling of the celebrated peace 
conference at Washington on the 4th of February, wherein 
twenty-one States were represented by 133 commis- 
sioners; which conference sat for more than three weeks, 
striving to devise some means to avert civil strife. Early 
in 1 861 it was believed by many that wise and temperate 
counsels might exert a wholesome influence and stay the 
wild passions of the hour. Therefore there was nothing 
unnatural in the slave State of Kentucky, bordering upon 
the free States, taking the position of mediator and at- 
tempting to act as an umpire between the two sections, 
with the patriotic view of possibly preventing a collision. 

Nothing could be more unjust than to attribute to the 
distinguished men who urged and advocated this position 
any motives other than absolute sincerity. As well 
might the peace conference at Washington be charged 
with base and sinister designs as to suggest such designs 
in connection with the effort made in Kentucky to pre- 
serve peace. 

In the biography of John C. Breckinridge it is said : 

"He was the avowed friend of the South, but, impressed with 
the magnitude of the bitter struggle which would ensue if all 
were submitted to the arbitrament of the sword, he strove 
most earnestly to secure by peaceable means the rights desired 
to that section. He labored in the Senate and among his own 
people to avert the disaster of war. As long as there was a 
hope of peace he bent his energies to secure it. But when it 
became evident that the North could be satisfied only with the 
subjugation of the South, he quitted the Senate and took up 
the sword." ' (Collins, vol. ii., p. 203.) 

This was in the fall of 1861. If he could be commended 
for striving to avert war up to that date, it could not 

' See Appendix, § 3, p. 338. 



42 Union Cause in Kentucky 

have been other than commendable for the Kentucky 
Unionists to labor to the same end in the beginning of 
the same year. 

On the 27th day of May, 1861, the Border State Con- 
vention met at Frankfort. After a week's session it 
issued two addresses; one to the people of the United 
States and one to the people of Kentucky. From the 
latter the following language is quoted: 

"Your State, on a deliberate consideration of her responsi- 
bilities, moral, political, and social, has determined that the 
proper course for her to pursue is to take no part in the con- 
troversy between the government and the seceded States but 
that of mediator and intercessor. She is unwilling to take up 
arms against her brethren residing either North or South of 
the geographical line by which they are unhappily divided 
into warring sections. This course was commended to her by 
every consideration of patriotism, and by a proper regard 
for her own security. It does not result from timidity; on 
the contrary, it could only have been adopted by a brave peo- 
ple, so brave that the least imputation on their courage would 
be branded as false by their written and traditional history." 

This address, which was written about June 1st and 
after hostilities had actually commenced, shows, by its 
language, that the stand for neutrality was taken before 
all hope for peace was abandoned. It goes on to say : 

"Kentucky was right in taking this position, because from 
the commencement of this deplorable controversy her voice 
was for reconciliation, compromise, and peace. She had no 
cause of complaint against the general government, and made 
none. The injuries she sustained in her property from a 
failure to execute laws passed for its protection in consequence 
of illegal interference by wicked and deluded citizens in the 
free States, she considered as wholly insufficient to justify a 
dismemberment of the Union, That, she regarded as no 
remedy for existing evils, but an aggravation of them all. She 
witnessed, it is true, with deep concern, the growth of a wild 



Neutrality 43 

and frenzied fanaticism in one section, and a reckless and 
defiant spirit in another, both equally threatening destruction 
to the country, and tried earnestly to arrest them, but in 
vain." 

As the address was written some days after the refusal 
of the Governor to respond to the national call for 
troops, the following language explanatory is quoted : 

"In declining to respond to a call made by the present 
administration of the government, and one that we have rea- 
son to believe would not have been made if the administration 
had been fully advised of the circumstances by which we were 
surrounded, Kentucky did not put herself in factious opposi- 
tion to her legitimate obligations. ... So far from being 
denounced for this action, it is everywhere looked upon as an 
act of purest patriotism, resulting from imperious necessity 
and the highest instincts of self-preservation, respected by the 
very administration that alone could have complained of it, 
and will, we doubt not, be ratified by it; if not in terms, at 
least by its future action. That act did not take her out of 
the Union." 

This address was signed by the following eminent citi- 
zens of Kentucky: J. J. Crittenden, president of the 
convention; James Guthrie, R. K. Williams, Archibald 
Dixon, F. M. Bristow, Joshua F. Bell, Charles A. Wick- 
liffe, G. W. Dunlap, C. S, Morehead, James F. Robin- 
son, John B. Huston, Robert Richardson. 

Such was the spirit of neutrality. It was inaugurated 
when there was a possibility of preventing bloodshed, 
and it was adhered to even in the first days of the struggle, 
while it yet appeared from the limited number of troops 
called out (only 75,000) that the actual struggle would 
be small in its proportions and not of long duration, the 
thought then being that it would not last longer than 
ninety days at the furthest. It is a wrong to the ear- 
nest-minded men of that time to lose sight of the fact 
that few persons, if any, in the entire country, then 



44 Union Cause in Kentucky 

looked forward to such a stupendous struggle as did 
come on. It is also due to them to credit them with 
honestly striving to pursue the best and wisest course in 
a crisis which called for the exercise of the soundest 
judgment with which human beings are endowed. It 
will be observed that in the language of the address 
quoted the words occur that "dismemberment of the 
Union is no remedy for existing evils, but an aggrava- 
tion of them all." 

This shows that in the minds and hearts of those who 
favored mediatorial neutrality there was the same devo- 
tion to the Union and opposition to secession which had 
manifested itself in the elections in i860, and which had 
caused the Bell and Everett party and the Douglas party 
to unite in the convention of the 8th of January. The 
attitude of the Kentucky people who were not secession- 
ists may be thus defined: They hoped for a peaceable 
solution of the troubles upon the country; therefore they 
would do nothing to excite strife, but by precept and 
example would seek to secure peace. Failing in that, 
the Union must be adhered to. In whatever stand was 
taken there was no thought of leaving the Union.' 
Not only so, but all schemes and machinations for 
taking Kentucky out of the Union were watched, resisted, 
and counteracted. That there was a struggle to bring 
about the secession of the State there can be no denial, 
and it is equally true the Kentucky Unionists resisted it 
with all their might. The Governor was a secessionist, 
and the Legislature was an unknown quantity when it 
met in January, 1861. If those who favored the Union 
had been less active and vigilant, there is reason to be- 
lieve the State would have been declared out of the 
Union even though a majority of the people opposed it. 

The resolution offered by Hon. R. T. Jacob in the 

' See Appendix, §§ 4 and 5, pp. 339 and 340. 



Neutrality -+5 

Legislature, on January 29th, in which it was declared 
that "the proper position of Kentucky is that of a media- 
tor," has been mentioned. He himself has left a valua- 
ble commentary upon the events of that day, in an 
address made before the Federal Historical Society of 
Louisville, on the subject of neutrality. In this address, 
commenting upon the resolution named, he said: 

" This leading sentiment of mediation was endorsed by the 
Union men of both Houses of the Legislature. 
Some may say, Why did not the Kentucky Legislature go for 
coercion? For two reasons: First, some States, it is true, 
had seceded from the Union, but war had not actually com- 
menced. Second, the men at that time who would have un- 
dertaken to force coercion upon the Legislature would have 
been in the hopeless minority, and would have immediately 
given a majority to the secessionists. It would have ended 
in total destruction to the cause of the Union in the State. 
Those resolutions were for two purposes: In good faith they 
were intended to compromise all differences between the 
States, and, if possible, to restore peace between the sections. 
If that failed, they were intended to hold, if possible, our 
meagre majority of one, until the people could act, and we 
had no doubt that when they did speak it would be in unmistak- 
able tones for the preservation of the Union." 

Although Colonel Jacob's resolutions were not agreed 
upon so as to become the Legislative act, they showed 
the position of the Kentucky Unionists. Even before the 
date of those resolutions, which was January 29th, 
the prominent leaders had advocated that stand, and 
such was the position of the Kentucky Unionists all the 
way through the whole course of neutrality. It was for 
mediation, and became known as "mediatorial neutral- 
ity" as against "armed neutrality," which was the stand 
taken by the secessionists, when they were not able to 
accomplish secession. This is clearly shown in Colonel 
Jacob's address, but before quoting, it is proper to 



46 Union Cause in Kentucky 

mention that the Legislature made a call for a Border State 
Convention to meet in Frankfort on May 27th. Dele- 
gates were nominated for this convention and the election 
took place May 4th. That election unexpectedly sent a 
thrill of joy throughout the loyal States. All the dele- 
gates elected were then regarded as Union men, and all 
were, with perhaps one exception. They were John J. 
Crittenden, James Guthrie, R. K. Williams, Archibald 
Dixon, F. M. Bristow, Joshua F. Bell, Charles A. Wick- 
liffe, George W. Dunlap, Chas. S. Morehead, James F. 
Robinson, John B. Huston, Robert Richardson. All 
were great men and chiefs among the people. The vote 
they received was 107,334, which showed such a prepon- 
derance pf Union sentiment in the State as to cause 
general rejoicing. It was this vote to which the Hon. 
Joseph Holt referred in his magnificent letter to Joshua 
F. Speed, May 31st, beginning: 

" The recent overwhelming vote in favor of the Union in 
Kentucky has afforded unspeakable gratification to all true 
men throughout the country." 

Referring to this election, Colonel Jacob says in his 
address : 

"As soon as the people sustained the Union cause, Gover- 
nor Magoffin issued his proclamation placing the State in 
* armed neutrality ' in contradistinction to ' mediatorial neutral- 
ity.' One was placing the State independent of both sections, 
and was simply nonsense. The other was simply the logical 
position forced upon the people by the want of power to hold 
any other, and retain the power so that they could ultimately, 
if peace could not be preserved, preserve the State to the 
Union." 

Colonel Jacob then goes on to say: 

"Immediately after Governor Magoffin's proclamation of 
'armed neutrality,' which was after the State had elected the 
Union men to the Border State Convention by an overwhelming 



' Neutrality 47 

majority, the secession members got up in the two Houses and 
declared they were for neutrality, meaning ' armed neutrality.' 
Here was where the confusion came in, and so much injustice 
has been done to the Union members of that Legislature, 
holding them and confining them to a position they never 
held, but always successfully opposed." 

Governor Magoffin's neutrality proclamation will be 
given entire, as it is a very remarkable document, and 
has never been published in full, except in the newspapers 
of that day. It will be observed it is not based upon 
any legislative enactment, but solely upon the two 
grounds that many good citizens applied to him to 
issue it, and in order to remove distrust from himself 
personally. 

Such neutrality as is set forth is grotesque, and was so 
regarded at the time. Without any authority, or any 
possible way to sustain himself, he solemnly forbade 
either the United States or the Confederate States to set 
foot on the sacred soil of Kentucky. 

Following is the proclamation : 

" Whereas numerous applications have been made to me 
from many good citizens of this Commonwealth, praying me 
to issue a proclamation forbidding the march of any forces of 
this or any other State or States over our soil to make an ap- 
prehended attack upon the Federal forces at Cairo in Illinois, 
or to disturb any otherwise the peaceful attitude of Kentucky 
with reference to the deplorable war now waging between 
the United States and the Confederate States; and whereas 
numerous applications from the good citizens of this Common- 
wealth have also been made to me, praying me to issue a 
proclamation forbidding the occupancy of any post or place, 
or the march over our sacred soil by any force of the United 
States for any purpose; and whereas it is made fully evident 
by every indication of public sentiment that it is the deter- 
mined purpose of the good people of Kentucky to maintain 
with courageous firmness the fixed position of self-defence, 



48 Union Cause in Kentucky 

proposing or intending no invasion or aggression towards any 
other State or States, forbidding the quartering of troops upon 
her soil by either of the hostile sections, but simply standing 
aloof from an unnatural, horrid, and lamentable strife for the 
existence of which Kentucky neither by thought, word, or act 
is in any wise responsible; and whereas the policy thus 
recommended by so many of my fellow-citizens of all political 
leanings is, in my judgment, wise, peaceful, safe, and honor- 
able, and the most likely to preserve peace and amity between 
the neighboring bordering States on both shores of the Ohio 
River, and protect Kentucky generally from the ravages of a 
deplorable war; and whereas the arms distributed to the 
State Guard, composed as it is of gentlemen equally conscien- 
tious and honest, who entertain the opinions of both parties, 
are not to be used against the Federal Government nor the 
Confederate States, but to resist and prevent encroachment 
upon her soil, her rights, her honor, and her sovereignty, by 
either of the belligerent parties, and to preserve the peace, 
safety, prosperity, and happiness and strict neutrality of her 
people, in the hope that she may soon have an opportunity 
to become a successful mediator between them and in order to 
remove the unfounded distrust and suspicions of purposes to 
force Kentucky out of the Union at the point of the bayonet 
which may have been wrongly and wickedly engendered in the 
public mind in regard to my own position and that of the 
State Guard, 

"Now, therefore, I, Beriah Magofhn, Governor of the Com- 
monwealth of Kentucky, and Commander-in-Chief of all her 
military forces on land or waters, have issued this my procla- 
mation, hereby notifying and warning all the other States, 
whether separate or united, and especially the 'United States* 
and the 'Confederate States,' that I solemnly forbid any 
movement upon the soil of Kentucky, or the occupation of 
any port, or post, or place whatever within the lawful boun- 
dary and jurisdiction of this State, by any of the forces under 
the orders of the States aforesaid, for any purpose whatever, 
until authorized by invitation or permission of the Legislature 
and Executive authority of this State previously granted. I 



Neutrality 49 

also hereby especially and solemnly forbid all good citizens of 
this Commonwealth, whether incorporated in the State Guard 
or otherwise, making any warlike or hostile demonstration 
whatever against any of the authorities aforesaid, earnestly 
requesting all citizens, civil and military, to be obedient 
hereto, to be obedient to the law and lawful orders of both 
the civil and military authorities; to remain, when off military 
duty, quietly and peaceably at their homes, pursuing their 
wonted lawful avocations; to refrain from all words and acts 
likely to engender hot blood and provoke collision ; to pursue 
such a line of wise conduct as will promote peace and tran- 
quillity and a sense of safety and security, and thus keep far 
away from our beloved land and the people the deplorable 
calamities of invasion, but at the same time earnestly counsel- 
ling my fellow-citizens of Kentucky to make prompt and 
efficient preparations to assume the armor and attitude pre- 
sented by the supreme law of self-defence — and strictly of 
self-defence alone. Praying Almighty God to have us ever- 
more in His holy keeping, and to preserve us in peace, pros- 
perity, and security forever. 

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my name and 
caused the seal of the Commonwealth to be affixed. Done at 
Frankfort the 20th day of May, a, d. 1861, and in the 69th 
year of the Commonwealth 

" By the Governor, B. Magoffin. 

"Thomas B. Monroe, Jr., 
"Secretary of State." 

In order to show clearly how a distinction was made 
between "mediatorial" and armed neutrality, it is set 
forth in Colonel Jacob's address, which follows the record 
of the House Journal, that on May 8th a resolution was 
offered in the House approving Governor Magoffin's 
refusal to comply with the Lincoln call for troops. On 
this there were forty-five afifirmative votes, and forty-five 
negative. Then, on May i6th, two resolutions were 
4 



50 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

offered : one that the State should take no part in the 
war except as a mediator and friend of both sides, and 
should occupy the position of strict neutrality; the 
other that, under existing circumstances, the refusal of 
Governor Magoflfin to furnish troops was approved. 
Both of these resolutions were adopted by the House. 
This was mediatorial. After this a resolution was ofTered 
to the effect that Kentucky cannot submit to armed 
forces hostile to her neutrality invading her soil. This 
was armed neutrality. The vote being taken caused a 
thrilling scene. It was rnoved to lay the resolution on 
the table; only forty-seven voted ay, and forty-eight 
voted no. Colonel Jacob says this caused exultation on 
the part of the secessionists, and dismay among the 
Unionists. Then the vote was taken on the resolution 
itself, when forty-seven voted ay, and forty-eight no. 
This result changed the feelings of the respective sides. 
So armed neutrality was defeated in the House by one 
vote, but it was enough, and settled the question in the 
House. "Thus," says Colonel Jacob in his address, 

"the Union men had only been able to defeat 'armed neu- 
trality' by one vote; that thoucrh unable to aid the government 
actively, or to make peace, yet, by 'mediatorial neutrality,' 
they were able to turn over the struggle to the people who, 
true to their love for the Union, elected a new Legislature 
with nearly three-fourths majority in the House for the perpet- 
uation of the Union and a largely-increased majority in the 
Senate." 

The neutrality of Kentucky was, therefore, forced 
upon the Unionists by the necessities and circum- 
stances of the times. They had to deal with a Legis- 
lature elected in 1859 before the question of Union or 
disunion was actually upon the people. It is plain if it 
had been elected in i860, when the question was up and 
the Unionists triumphed both at the August and Novem- 
ber elections, there would have been no occasion for 



Neutrality 51 

neutrality. Under the circumstances, the Unionists did 
all they could to save the State from being stampeded 
out of the Union. If they had acted without discretion, 
and had allowed themselves to be led into the vortex of 
secession, they would have been unwise and censurable. 
The prime object of the Unionists was to save the 
Union, and at a time before the war had actually com- 
menced, when it was thought it might possibly be 
averted, there was reason and patriotism in the stand 
taken. All that was done and said by the Kentucky 
Unionists manifested a determined purpose on their part 
not to join the secessionist movement. There were 
grounds for believing that this refusal to aid the South 
might, as was constantly pleaded, serve to moderate the 
passions of the Southern people, and also cause the 
Northern people to make such concessions as might pre- 
serve the peace. The language of the address of the 
Border State Convention shows this: 

"To our fellow-citizens of the South we desire to say, 
though we have been greatly injured by your precipitate 
action, we would not now reproach you as the cause of that 
injury, but we entreat you to re-examine the question of the 
necessity for such action, and that if you find it has been 
taken without due consideration, as we verily believe, and that 
the evils you apprehend from a continuance in the Union were 
neither so great nor so unavoidable as you supposed, or that 
Congress is willing to grant adequate securities, then we pray 
you to return promptly to your connection with us, that we 
may be in the future, as we have been in the past, one great, 
powerful, and prosperous nation." 

These and other like patriotic words were intended for 
a good purpose, and the names of the men who signed 
the address are a guarantee of their absolute good faith. 
The signers were John J. Crittenden, James Guthrie, R. 
K. Williams, Archibald Dixon, F. M. Bristow, Joshua F. 
Bell, Charles A. Wickliffe, G. VV. Dunlap, James F. 



52 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Robinson, John B. Huston, Robert Richardson, of Ken- 
tucky; H. R. Gamble, Wm. A. Hall, J. B. Henderson, 
W. G. Pomeroy, of Missouri; John Caldwell, of Tennessee. 
The Kentucky Unionists regarded secession as cause- 
less and unnecessary. Their constant expressions on the 
subject show this. When Hon. Charles A. Wickliffe 
was nominated for Congress in the first part of June, 
1861, he addressed a letter to his constituents, dated 
June loth, in which he said: 

"It has been charged that the war has been inaugurated by 
the United States for the purpose of crushing and subjugating 
the slave States. This charge is not true. I was opposed to 
its commencement for any purpose. It was commenced by 
South Carolina and the seceding States by various acts of open 
hostility; by the seizure of forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom- 
houses, sub-treasury, mints, money, and other property of the 
United States by armed force," {^Louisville Journal.^ 

The feelings of the Kentucky Unionists cannot be bet- 
ter described than by quoting from the last speech of 
Senator Stephen A. Douglas, for whom so many Ken- 
tuckians had voted for the Presidency. The date of the 
speech was May 1, 1861. Mr. Douglas said: 

"What cause, what excuse do disunionists give for breaking 
up the best government on which the sun of heaven ever 
shed its rays ? They are dissatisfied with the result of a Pres- 
idential election. Did they ever get beaten before ? Are we 
to resort to the sword when we get defeated at the ballot-box ? 
They assume that on the election of a particular candidate 
their rights are not safe in the Union. What evidence do they 
present of this? I defy any man to show any act on which 
it is based. . . . There has never been a time, from the 
day that George Washington was inaugurated first President 
of the United States, when the rights of the Southern States 
stood firmer under the laws of the land than they do now. 
There never was a time when they had not as good a cause for 
disunion as they have to-day." 



Neutrality 53 

While the sentiments of those Unionists were strong 
and unmistakable for the Union, they were hampered in 
the full exercise of their wishes. A way seemed to open 
up for the solution of the terribly perplexing question of 
the day. That way was neutrality. It is a noticeable 
fact that precisely what was done in Kentucky was 
attempted in Tennessee. On the i8th of April eleven 
distinguished Tennesseeans published an address declar- 
ing that : 

" The present duty of Tennessee is to maintain a position of 
independence — taking sides with the Union and the peace of 
the country against all assailants, whether from the North or 
the South. Her position should be to maintain the sanctity 
of her soil from the hostile tread of any party." 

This address was signed by John Bell, who had been a 
candidate for the Presidency, and also Neil S. Brown, 
Russell Houston, E. H. Ewing, C. Johnson, R. J. 
Meigs, S. D. Morgan, John S. Brien, Andrew Ewing, 
John H. Callender, Baillie Peyton. (Moore, Rebellion 
Record, vol. i., p. 71, Documents.^ 

After the Legislature of the winter and spring of 1861 
failed to call a convention to consider secession, the 
secessionists themselves began to insist upon neutrality. 
Yet, when the people voted so tremendously for the 
Union and began to organize and provide themselves 
with arms, then these secessionists began to hurl epithets 
at the Union neutrality men and charge them with 
duplicity. They insisted upon armed neutrality after 
they found they could not get secession, but they charged 
bad faith on those who had been for mediatorial neutral- 
ity all the time. Not only were the originators of the 
neutrality plan accused of bad faith, at the time and 
in subsequent histories; they have also been subjected to 
ridicule by historians who have the advantage of looking 
backward upon all the events of the period, while those 



54 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

actors in a great emergency had to shape their course 
without knowing what those stupendous events would be. 
In Nicolay and Hriy's Life of Lincoln we read : 
"It makes one smile to read the contradictions which 
eminent Kentucky statesmen uttered in all seriousness." 
The utterances of James Guthrie and Archibald Dixon 
are then quoted. Also, the resolutions of the Union 
State Committee, taking the same ground as that taken 
by the Tennessee statesmen. The expressions are called 
"illogical" and "preposterous assumption," but that 
most excellent and invaluable history does the justice to 
quote the explanation of neutrality given in a letter writ- 
ten by John J. Crittenden to General Scott, dated May 
17, 1861. Crittenden was prominent in it all. He was 
a great man, and as noble as he was great. He under- 
stood the case, and was capable of laying it before the 
high ofificial to whom he wrote. What he said is as 
follows: 

"The position of Kentucky and the relation she occupies 
toward the government of the Union is not, I fear, understood 
at Washington. It ought to be well understood. Very im- 
portant consequences may depend upon it and upon her 
proper treatment. 

"Unfortunately for us, our Governor does not sympathize 
with Kentucky in respect to secession. His opinion and feel- 
ings incline him strongly to the side of the South. His 
answer to the requisition for troops was in terms hasty and un- 
becoming, and does not correspond with usual and gentlemanly 
courtesy. But, while she regretted the language of his answer, 
Kentucky acquiesced in his declining to furnish the troops 
called for, and she did so not because she loved the Union 
less, but she feared that if she had parted with those troops, 
and sent them to serve in your ranks, she would have been 
overwhelmed by the secessionists at home, and severed from the 
Union. And it was to preserve substantially and ultimately our 
connection with the Union that induced us to acquiesce in the par- 



Neutrality 55 

tial infraction of it by our Governor'' s refusal of troops required. 
This was the most prevailing atid general motive. To this may- 
be added the strong indisposition of our people to a civil war 
with the South, and the apprehended consequences of a civil 
war within our State and among our own people. 

"I could elaborate and strengthen all this, but I will leave 
the subject to your own reflection, with only this remark — 
that I think Kentucky's excuse a good one, and that, under all 
the circumstances of the complicated case, she is rendering 
better service in her present position than she could by be- 
coming an active party in the contest," (Vol. iv., p. 233.) 

The judgment of John J. Crittenden, expressed in this 
letter, at the time he vi^rote, is of more weight than the 
speculations of any historian. 

Nicolay and Hay's work contains the following preg- 
nant sentence: 

"From the beginning Lincoln felt that Kentucky would 
be a turning weight in the scale of war." 

This being the case, it is but natural that at the Con- 
federate capital the feeling was the same. If so, who 
can estimate the keen disappointment there, when the 
secession of Kentucky was not accomplished? As we 
now look back upon the mad passions of the hour, it 
may seem chimerical for the Union leaders in Kentucky 
to suppose the failure to get Kentucky might have 
stayed the progress of the Southern movement, and thus 
brought about peace. But at the time there was reason 
in hoping that the Southern people who were going out 
to make war might be induced to sit down and take 
counsel whether they would be able to meet their antag- 
onist without the aid of so important a State as Ken- 
tucky. And in the neutrality stand there was, all the 
time, a trumpet note of no uncertain sound in favor of 
the Union and no less decision in the constant declara- 
tion that secession was a remedy for nothing. There 
was never a thouorht of ultimate connection with the 



5^ Union Cause in Kentucky 

South, but a steady purpose to stay in the Union, and 
when the time came, the Unionists of Kentucky were 
found fighting in the ranks of the Union armies to pre- 
serve the Union, to which they never for a moment lost 
their adhesion. 



CHAPTER V 

RESOLUTIONS OF THE UNION STATE COMMITTEE 

WHAT has been said in explanation of neutrality- 
serves also to explain the position of the Union 
State Central Committee in its famous resolutions imme- 
diately following Governor Magoffin's refusal to furnish 
troops in response to the call of President Lincoln. 
That committee, it will be remembered, was appointed in 
January, 1861, when the Bell party and the Douglas 
party made a fusion — both being for the preservation of 
the Union. It is a fact that this Union Committee 
indorsed the refusal of Governor Magoffin to furnish 
troops, and it also used language many claim committed 
Kentucky to the South. That was on the i8th day of 
April, 1 861. On the one proposition the resolutions 
said: 

"The government of the Union has appealed to her 
[Kentucky] to furnish men to suppress the revolutionary 
combinations in the Cotton States. She has refused ; she 
has most wisely and justly refused." 

On the other, they said : 

"What the future destiny of Kentucky may be, we 
cannot, of course, with certainty, foresee. But if the 
enterprise announced in the proclamation of the Presi- 
dent should at any time hereafter assume the aspect of 
a war for overrunning and subjugation of the seceding 
States — that then Kentucky ought to take her stand 
with the South." 

57 



58 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Both of these expressions have been much commented 
on. Much has been made of them by writers who seek 
to convict the Union men of Kentucky of duplicity. 
The committee was composed of eminent and widely- 
known Union men — John H. Harney, George D. Prentice, 
Charles Ripley, Philip Tompert, Nat Wolfe, William F. 
Bullock, James Speed, William P. Boone, Hamilton 
Pope, Louis E. Harvie. All, excepting the one last 
named, remained true to the Union throughout the entire 
struggle. It is claimed that these Union leaders took 
ground against war for the Union, and also pledged Ken- 
tucky to the South in the event of war, and that they 
were afterwards false to their expressed position in their 
resolutions. The questions arise, Why did the commit- 
tee indorse the Governor's refusal to furnish troops? 
And why did they use the language quoted concerning 
the future of Kentucky? As we have said of neutrality, 
that it must not be judged in the light which shines back 
upon it, but rather in the light of the time when it was 
born, so it must be said of the resolutions of the com- 
mittee. Both of the questions propounded are easily 
answered when the circumstances and conditions are con- 
sidered, and when the other language in the resolutions 
is considered. The committee was called upon to speak 
and it was so situated that it could not have spoken ex- 
cept as it did. The Kentucky Unionists had theretofore 
taken the stand for neutrality for a wise and reasonable 
purpose, as has been shown. Now, shall the committee, 
while this neutral stand is the order of the day, resolve 
that Kentucky should furnish troops? What, in such 
case, would become of the idea of neutrality? The com- 
mittee must either suddenly fly in the face of the position 
the people had taken, or else agree that under the 
circumstances the refusal was proper. The language of 
the resolutions is as follows: "The present duty of 
Kentucky is to maintain her present independent posi- 



Union State Committee Resolutions 59 

tion, taking sides not with the government and not with 
the seceding States, but with the Union, against them 
both." They also contain this language: 

"Seditious leaders in the midst of us now appeal to her 
[Kentucky] to furnish men to uphold those combinations 
against the government of the Union. Will she comply 
with this appeal? Ought she to comply with it? We 
answer with emphasis, No." 

T\\Q present duty of the State, so far as the committee 
could speak, was to stand neutral in the fight, but to 
stand in the Union. That was all it could say upon that 
point. 

Then, as to the future of the State, we must note 
the language, and consider the inflammatory writing and 
speaking which abounded at that day. The resolutions 
say, "7/" the enterprise announced in the proclamation 
of the President should at any time hereafter assume the 
aspect of a war for the overrunning and subjugation of 
the seceding States," Kentucky would draw the sword 
in resistance. 

It is plain that the committee did not regard the aspect 
of the war at that time as intending to overrun or sub- 
jugate the South, and the committee expressly so stated 
in the resolutions, using this language in regard to it : 

"Such an event, if it should occur, of which we confess 
there does not appear to us to be rational probability." 

It may be asked. What meaning could the call for 
troops have other than subjugation? The question 
must be answered in the light of the public writing and 
speaking of the time. It was charged that the party 
which elected Lincoln was insane with fanaticism, and 
that its purpose was to crush and overrun the South, 
wantonly destroying property, perpetrating outrages, 
and in every conceivable manner mistreating the South- 
ern people; that the election of Lincoln meant that the 
people of the South were to be deprived of their liberties 



6o Union Cause in Kentucky 

and brought into subjection as conquered provinces. It 
was on account of these anticipated wrongs that the 
States seceded. They insisted that the purposes of the 
North towards them were so brutal and savage that in 
order to protect their hves and property, and to save 
their women and children from unspeakable horrors, they 
were forced to secede. 

All this the committee regarded as folly, and worse 
than folly. But as the country rang with such wild 
ebullitions of passionate talk, and as this was what was 
meant by the word "subjugation," the committee natur- 
ally said if such things should come to pass Kentucky 
would draw the sword against it. And so, doubtless, 
she would have done, but the committee saw no such 
future in the call for troops. It did not regard the call 
for troops to suppress insurrection as looking to "subju- 
gation," as that word was interpreted then to mean. 

In the first place, the call for only 75,000 troops did 
not look like "subjugation." The expectation of the 
time was that the war would be over in "ninety days," 
and that did not look like "subjugation." Nor did it 
appear that the Confederate authorities at that time 
anticipated any great or extended war. On all sides the 
indications were that there would be only a small and 
short-lived trouble. This was evidenced not only by the 
call of 75,000 troops for ninety days, but also by the 
views of the President of the Confederacy. 

On the 29th of April, two weeks after the call for 
75,000 troops, Jefferson Davis sent his message to the 
Confederate Congress, in which he used the following 
language : 

" There are now in the field at Charleston, Pensacola, Forts 
Morgan, Jackson, St. Philip, and Pulaski, 19,000 men, and 
16,000 are now en route for Virginia. It is proposed to 
organize and hold in readiness for instant action, in view of 
the present exigencies of the country, 100,000 men. If 



Union State Committee Resolutions 6i 

further force be needed, the wisdom and patriotism of Con- 
gress will be confidently appealed to for authority to call into 
the field additional numbers of our noble-spirited volunteers 
who are constantly tendering their services, far in excess of 
our wants. ' ' ' 

This did not indicate that a great and prolonged war 
was expected by him, nor a war that would call out all 
who could fight. In the second place, the committee 
entertained no such ideas of the awful intentions of the 
North as stated. And in order that it may be seen what 
extreme expressions on the subject were prevalent, atten- 
tion may be called to some of them, though to mention 
all would require volumes. 

In the speeches before the Virginia convention, Febru- 
ary, 1 86 1 (Moore Reb. Rec, vol. 12, p. 142), we find 
these expressions: 

"Avowed purpose to take possession of every department 
of power and employ them in hostility to our institutions." 

' ' The government has become our foe and oppressor, never 
to pause until our dearest rights as well as our honor are 
crushed beneath its iron heel." 

" Light up the fires of servile insurrection, and give your 
dwellings to the torch of the incendiary and your wives and 
children to the knife of the assassin." 

"The degradation of the South, the result of Lincoln's 
election." 

" Take possession of the power of the government and use 
it for our destruction." 

" The government of the United States will come down on 
us in overwhelming numbers, our men will be exterminated, 
or compelled to wander as vagabonds on a hostile earth, and 
as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate 
even in fancy." 

** The white race having been exterminated, the land will go 
into the exclusive possession of the blacks, and will, in 

' See Appendix § 6, p. 341. 



62 Union Cause in Kentucky 

consequence, rapidly pass into the condition of San Do- 
mingo and become a howling wilderness." 

"At last the fanaticism and eager haste for rapine, mingled 
with their foul purposes, engendered those fermenting millions 
who have seized the Constitution and distorted its most sacred 
form into an instrument for our ruin." 

" Threaten to send the ruffians of Boston and New York to 
re-enact the scenes of 1813 at Portsmouth and Hampton. 

"A savage war in which no age or sex is spared." 

It was thus that the commissioners from the already 
seceded States represented the purposes of the North 
toward the South in the Virginia convention. 

The same extreme language emanated from the very 
highest sources. 

In a speech of Alexander H. Stephens April 30, 1861, 
he said: "We fight for our homes, our fathers and 
mothers, our wives, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters; 
they for money — the hirelings and mercenaries of the 
North are hand-to-hand against you." 

In his message to the Confederate Congress July 20, 
1 861, President Davis says the events of the last few 
weeks lift the veil behind which the purposes of the 
Federals have been concealed, and their odious features 
are revealed. The purpose is subjugation of the South, 
by waging an "indiscriminate war with savage ferocity 
unknown in modern civilization"; "in this war rapine is 
the rule"; that dwellings and property are destroyed 
"after the inhabitants have fled from the outrages of 
brutal soldiery." "Mankind will shudder at the tale of 
outrages committed on defenceless families. " "Special 
war on the sick, including women and children." "The 
sacred claims of humanity, respected even during the 
fury of actual battle by careful diversion of attack from 
hospitals, are outraged in cold blood, by a government 
that pretends to desire a continuance of fraternal 
relations." 



Union State Committee Resolutions 63 

When Mr. Davis came to write a history of the war a 
number of years after it was over, he indulged freely in 
the same kind of extreme language: "Plunder and 
devastation of the property of non-combatants; destruc- 
tion of private dwellings, and even edifices devoted to the 
worship of God; expeditions organized for the sole pur- 
pose of sacking cities, consigning them to flames, killing 
the unarmed inhabitants, and inflicting horrible outrages 
on women and children were some of the constantly re- 
curring atrocities of the invader." (Vol. ii, p. .709.) 

In the same way that the Southern Commissioners 
presented the case to Virginia, so was it presented to the 
State of Kentucky. 

December 28, i860, Governor Magoflfin addressed a 
letter to the Commissioner from Alabama, Hon. F. S. 
Hale, in response to one received, in which the direful 
purposes of the people of the North are depicted. Ma- 
goffin says that Mr. Hale in his letter to him has not 
exaggerated "the grievous wrongs, injuries, and indig- 
nities ' to which the citizens of the South have long sub- 
mitted. He speaks of those who are "so madly bent 
upon the destruction of our constitutional guaranties"; 
that the people of Kentucky realize "the intolerable 
wrongs and menacing dangers you have so elaborately 
recounted " ; that "when the time of action comes (and 
it is now fearfully near at hand) our people will be found 
allied as a unit under the flag of resistance to intolerable 
wrong." He speaks of the Southern States as "confront- 
ed by a common enemy, encompassed by a common peril." 

He says "the Legislature of Kentucky will assemble 
on the 17th of January, when the sentiment of the State 
will doubtless find expression." 

In the letter to which Governor Magoffin replied as 
above, Mr. Hale represents the feeling of the Northern 
people as terrible in its savagery and brutality towards 
the South. He says: 



64 Union Cause in Kentucky 

" The more daring and restless fanatics have banded them- 
selves together to carry out in practice the terrible lessons 
taught by the timid, by making an armed incursion upon the 
sovereign State of Virginia, slaughtering her citizens for the 
purpose of inciting a servile insurrection among her slave 
population, and arming them for the destruction of their own 
masters. During the past summer the abolition incendiary 
has lit up the prairies of Texas, fired the dwellings of the 
inhabitants, burned up whole towns, and laid poison for her 
citizens, thus literally executing the terrible denunciations 
of fanaticism against the slaveholder — alarm to their sleep, 
fire to their dwellings, and poison to their food." 

He speaks of Lincoln's election in these words: "As 
the last and crowning act of insult and outrage upon the 
people of the South, the citizens of the Northern States, 
by overwhelming majorities, on the 6th day of November 
last, elected Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin." 

He says of Lincoln that " He stands forth as the repre- 
sentative of the fanaticism of the North," and that "his 
election cannot be regarded otherwise than as a solemn 
declaration on the part of a great majority of the North- 
ern people of hostility to the South, her property, and 
her institutions. Nothing less than a declaration of war 
for the triumph of this new theory of government — 
destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, 
and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile 
insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassination, and 
their wives and daughters to pollution." 

He says: "If the policy of the Republicans is carried 
out according to the program indicated by the leaders of 
the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin 
must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the South- 
ern States." "Who can look upon such a picture with- 
out a shudder? " "Our lives, our property, the safety of 
our homes and our hearthstones — all that men hold dear 
on earth — is involved in the issue." 



Union State Committee Resolutions 65 

Governor Magoffin approved all this, and much more, 
contained in Mr. Hale's letter, and said Mr. Hale had 
not exaggerated the case. 

Such fearful portrayals of the alleged demoniacal spirit 
and purposes of the North were everywhere rife at the 
time. It is therefore not unreasonable that the Union 
men of Kentucky, who did not believe one word of such 
folly, should yet, when called upon to adopt resolutions, 
say, in order to satisfy the public mind, that if such 
awful conditions should arise, they would take up arms 
to resist. 

In the third place, the committee regarded the war at 
that time precisely as it truly was, and as it was through- 
out the entire struggle. The object and purposes of the 
war were well expressed by Hon. Cassius M. Clay in a 
letter to the London Times May 17, 1861. He answers the 
question "Can you govern a subjugated people?" by 
saying: ** We do not propose to subjugate the revolted 
States. We propose simply to put down the rebel citi- 
zens. The United States will rise from the smoke of 
battle with renewed stability and power " (Moore, Re- 
bellion Rec.y vol. I, p. 340.) 

The committee saw that the war could be prosecuted 
for the maintenance of the Union without being a war 
for subjugation, just as was outlined in the celebrated 
Crittenden resolutions, introduced in Congress in July, 
1 861, which may here be quoted entire: 

^* Resolved, That the present deplorable Civil War has been 
forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern 
States, now in arms against the Constitutional government, 
and in arms around the Capital. That in this National emer- 
gency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resent- 
ment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country. That 
this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, 
or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of 
overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of 
5 



66 Union Cause in Kentucky 

those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of 
the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all its dig- 
nity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired, 
and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war 
ought to cease." 

It is plain that the distinguished author of these reso- 
lutions might vv^ell have signed the resolutions of the com- 
mittee. He counselled mediation and neutrality, v^'ith 
the intense hope that it might accomplish something, 
and he saw that the war could be, as it was, to maintain 
the Union, and was not for subjugation; that it had no 
such object as was declared in the inflammatory utter- 
ances of the day, and he could have said with any rea- 
sonable person that if it should ever take on the fearful 
features portrayed by the wild imagination of speakers 
and writers, then Kentuckians and all other humane 
persons anywhere would aid in resisting such barbaric, 
or, rather, demon-like, conduct. 

The unequivocal, outspoken stand of the resolutions 
and of all the Unionists from first to last was for the 
Union. In view of the dire predictions of the terrible 
purposes of the North to overrun the South like savages 
the natural right existed to say that in such event Ken- 
tucky would draw the sword to resist. But they saw no 
such savagery involved in saving the Union. The main- 
tenance of National authority did not call for savage 
orgies as the fire-eaters proclaimed, and there was no 
inconsistency in saying such atrocious conduct would 
be resisted. 

Again, there was perfect consistency in adhering to the 
Union and yet favoring the neutrality of Kentucky. 
That might be the very best means to avert war, and 
even such men as Jefferson Davis and John C. Breckin- 
ridge declared that they sought to the last to avert war 
in the way they thought right and best. There was no 
sort of inconsistency in the Unionists avowedly standing 



Union State Committee Resolutions 67 

for the Union, which involved no change, and also favor- 
ing neutrality under the circumstances existing. 

On the other hand, however, it was altogether incon- 
sistent to claim to respect and observe neutrality, and 
yet work to accomplish secession. To secede meant 
positive action and positive change. Therefore, the 
Southern Rights Kentuckians who were striving for 
secession could not be called neutral. They could not 
be promoters of positive change and still respect and 
observe neutrality. If they did respect and observe 
neutrality, then they could not be iworking in the inter- 
ests of secession. 

This difference between the two sides was bound to 
exist from the fact that no positive action was needed to 
place Kentucky in the Union, it being already there ; but 
positive action was necessary to make the change and 
take the State out of the Union. 

The manifest object of the resolutions was to satisfy 
the people of both parties that the neutral stand of the 
State, for the purpose of trying to allay passion, was to 
be observed in the striking particular of not, under pres- 
ent circumstances, furnishing troops to either side, and 
to give assurance that the party represented by the com- 
mittee abhorred the thought of "subjugation," as subju- 
gation was depicted to be. The committee did not see 
that there was any "rational probability" of such pur- 
poses of subjugation and could justly speak of it as they 
did. 

Everything turned on the meaning attached to the 
word subjugation. When any violation of law is 
stopped, or if any insubordination is quelled, or in- 
surrection put down, the word "subjugation" may be 
used in a general sense, but it does not follow that all 
who may be engaged in such breach of the peace, 
together with their families, are to be persecuted with 
demoniacal fury. 



68 Union Cause in Kentucky 

The Civil War, on the National side, was for a definite 
purpose — to save the Union. But it was a war, and 
when there is war there is hardship. Incidental harm 
and incidental changes and disruptions are unavoidable 
in wars. Deplorable as the consequences of any war are, 
such characterizing of our own as that found in the pas- 
sage quoted from Jefferson Davis is nothing but temper, 
not historic statement. So, also, in the proclamation of 
the Governor of Georgia, February ii, 1862, in which he 
says, "a wicked and bloody war is waged upon the South 
because it threw off the yoke of bondage and refused to 
be hewers of wood and drawers of water for a haughty 
and insolent people who claimed the right of obedience 
to their mandates" ; and that, in the "attempt to sub- 
jugate us," all rules of civilized warfare are disregarded: 
"they have stolen our property, laid waste the country, 
and with fiendish malignity shot down women and child- 
ren ; they have disregarded all dictates of humanity ; 
they carry on the war for our destruction ; our lands are 
to be taken from us and colonized with Yankees; compel 
our negroes to cultivate the lands for Northerners; we 
are to be driven from home ; our graves and altars to be 
trampled under foot by our insolent masters; we must 
transmit to our posterity a heritage of bondage." {War 
Records Stria}, No. 127, p. 918.) This also is temper, not 
history nor truth. 

This lurid form of expression depicts the "subjuga- 
tion" of the hour which the committee abhorred.' While 
it spoke out against such subjugation, and respected the 
neutrality stand of the State, it yet manifested its thor- 
ough repugnance to the Southern movement and firm 
adherence to the Union. That was the whole case, and 
the whole point. Not to secede covered all, for that 
was all that was asked. And for Kentucky to stand 
aloof from the Confederacy was such a startling disap- 

* See Appendix, § 7, p. 342. 



Union State Committee Resolutions 69 

pointment it was with good reason the Kentucky Union- 
ists hoped that thereby the war might be averted. 

There was the same juggling with the word "coercion" 
as with "subjugation." If it were agreed that secession 
was a right, then to coerce a State back into the Union 
after it seceded would be a wrong. But secession was 
not acknowledged as a right. It was not agreed that 
any State, when it chose to do so, could disrupt the 
Union and change the whole aspect and condition of the 
American Republic, by setting up an independency and 
entering into any relations it chose with foreign powers. 
It must always be remembered that the contention was 
made that this could not be done, just as strongly as it 
was contended that it could be done. Furthermore, the 
United States claimed that it had rights to its own prop- 
erty, even if it was located in some State which assumed 
the right to secede. 

Therefore, when any one State of the Union saw fit to 
exercise what it claimed as a right, it was in order for the 
National government to claim its rights also. 

If it be agreed that there were two theories of our Re- 
public, one that a State was supreme, and the other that 
it was not, it was as natural, when the time came, for the 
Nation to assert its right as for the State to asseit its 
right. When, therefore, a State seceded, and took all 
the United States property in its limits along with it, it 
was puerile to say "All we want is to be let alone." 
Of course, that was all, but the National government 
naturally said in reply, " You shall not destroy the whole 
plan of the Republic nor take all the government prop- 
erty." The United States either had to yield its rights 
or else insist upon them, even if force had to be used. 

The words "subjugation" and "coercion" were there- 
fore misleading, and there was no occasion for their use. 
To illustrate the real status of the case, the following, 
which occurred in Congress, is in point : 



70 Union Cause in Kentucky 

July II, i86i, Vallandigham offered a proviso to a bill 
for raising money to suppress the rebellion, that no part 
of it should be employed in subjugating or holding, as 
conquered provinces, any State, or to abolish slavery. 

Mr. McClernand said that he, being in favor of a vigor- 
ous prosecution of the war, would not allow amendments 
which 

"carry an implication with them that the object of the war 
is very different from the design of those prosecuting it. I 
have heard no respectable man or set of men say that the 
object of this war is to subjugate the seceding States and hold 
them as conquered provinces. ... I am for prose- 
cuting this war for the purpose of vindicating the Federal 
authority, and putting down rebellion, and not for the purpose 
of subjugating the seceding States and holding them as con- 
quered provinces, nor for the purpose of abc-lishing slavery, 
and I repudiate all reflections of that kind. The imputation 
is unjust to the friends of the war." {Congressional Globe^ 
July II, 1861.) 

Many persons chose to attach the meaning of the most 
extreme kind to the words "subjugation" and "coer- 
cion," but the committee and the Kentucky Unionists, 
in common with the true men of the whole country, saw 
that war could be made and prosecuted for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion without making it demoniacal in its 
purposes. They saw that secession and appropriation of 
government property could be resisted rightfully and 
legally, although it was claimed that such resistance was 
subjugation and coercion. They foresaw — precisely what 
came to pass — the overthrow of armed opposition to 
National authority and the salvation of the American 
Union. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE UNION LEADERS 

THERE has been so much misrepresentation of the 
Union men of Kentucky, and as there has never 
been any response to such misrepresentations in histori- 
cal form, it is due to the men who were true to the 
Union, and who were instrumental in holding the State 
of Kentucky in the Union, that they should here have 
some particular mention. It would scarcely be possible 
to name them all, but some of the names may be given, 
showing in a general way the principal leaders of the 
Union sentiment in various parts of the State. 

It has been unjustly said that the Union men of note 
were few in number. In the sketch of the life of Hon. 
Garrett Davis in Collins's Kentucky, it is said "He was 
among the few leading Kentuckians who opposed seces- 
sion in 1861 " (vol. i., p. 82). 

It is also said in Shaler's History that "The intellect- 
ual and political leadership of the Commonwealth was 
mainly in the hands of men who, though often uncon- 
sciously, were steadily acting in a way to lead the people 
toward secession." 

It would have been most singular if the people of the 
State had voted overwhelmingly against the Southern 
movement, as they did, without leadership. When we 
reflect upon the influence which is exerted upon the popu- 
lar mind in critical times by the men who are looked to 
as the natural leaders of public sentiment, the conclusion 

71 



72 Union Cause in Kentucky 

is irresistible that there was in Kentucky a leadership of 
the highest intellectual and moral force which stemmed 
the pressure brought to bear in favor of secession. 

The Governor was a secessionist and it might have been 
readily supposed, indeed, almost taken for granted, that 
the Legislature elected in 1859 would act in harmony with 
the Governor. All the inducements, arguments, and in- 
flammatory appeals which could be urged were presented 
to persuade or fire the hearts of the people of the State to 
join the Confederacy, but all were of little avail compara- 
tively. When the test came in 1 860 the people refused to 
vote for the Southern Rights candidate for the Presidency. 
When the test came in the meeting of the Legislature in 
the winter and spring of 1861, the members refused to 
obey the behests or respond to the earnest wishes of 
the rebel Governor and his chosen friends. When the 
test came at the polls in 1861, the people declared in 
favor of the Union by overwhelming majorities. 

Shall it be said all this occurred when the principal m.en 
of the State were of a contrary mind ? The perversions of 
the case deserve to be answered. A list of names will here 
be presented, which might be greatly enlarged, but it is 
enough to show the folly of the statements which have 
appeared in historical works to the effect that the leading 
men of Kentucky were secessionists. The very opposite 
is true. All the facts show it, — the names themselves, 
the voting at all the elections, and the logic of the fig- 
ures which show that more than three times as many en- 
listed as Union soldiers as there were Confederate soldiers 
from Kentucky. 

Of those mentioned it may be said that all had at- 
tained distinction in professional or business life, and in 
public service before the war. It would be an endless task 
to enumerate all who achieved high position by service 
in the war. There were four thousand commissioned 
officers, most of them young men who began their career 



The Union Leaders 73 

in military life, and afterwards engaged in pursuits which 
established them as the most valuable citizens of the 
State, or of other States to which many removed. This 
great body of Kentucky Unionists must remain unnamed 
in the list here to be presented. 

Hon. John J. Crittenden was the most eminent of the 
Union leaders. He was mature in life and had had a 
great and honorable career. Born in 1786, he served in 
the War of 1812, and was Attorney-General in Harrison's 
Cabinet; had served in Congress, had been Governor of 
his State, and at the beginning of the war period was a 
United States Senator, having served in the Senate 
altogether for twenty years. All charges against the 
Union leaders fall upon him as well as others, which is 
proof of their baselessness. 

James Guthrie was one of Kentucky's greatest men. 
He was an able lawyer; had been Secretary of the 
Treasury in the Cabinet of President Pierce; was 
President of the Constitutional Convention of 1849. I" 
the war period he was President of the Louisville & 
Nashville railroad, and as such is mentioned by General 
Sherman as follows: 

"I have always felt grateful to Mr. Guthrie of Louis- 
ville, who had sense enough and patriotism enough to 
subordinate the interests of his railroad to the cause of his 
country." {Alemoirs, vol. ii., p. 12.) 

Hon. Joshua F. Bell, who had served in Congress. He 
made the race for Governor against Magofifin, and was 
one of the most gifted men and powerful orators in the 
State. 

Judge S. S. Nicholas, the son of the celebrated George 
Nicholas of Virginia, was distinguished alike for his great 
abilities and high character. He was eminent as a lawyer 
and judge. So earnest was he in his Unionism that it is 
said of him in his biography, "he probably did more than 
any other man toward saving the State to the Union." 



74 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, D.D., uncle of John C. 
Breckinridge, was the most intellectual member of a 
family noted for intellect. His trenchant pen and 
eloquent voice were unceasingly exerted to save the 
Union. 

Hon. James F. Robinson, "The mentor of the Scott 
County Bar." He was made Governor in 1862, upon 
the resignation of Governor Magofifin. 

Hon. Charles A. Wickliffe, whose distinguished career 
in the legislative halls, both of the State and Nation, and 
in the Cabinet of President Tyler, and in the gubernato- 
rial chair, together with his high personal character, 
made him, in the crucial period, one of the chiefs among 
the Union leaders. 

Hon. Archibald Dixon, distinguished as a lawyer and 
statesman. He had been Governor of Kentucky and 
United States Senator. 

Hon. James Harlan, the father of Justice John M. 
Harlan, who had served in the State Legislature, in Con- 
gress, and as Attorney-General of Kentucky. 

Hon. Garrett Davis, who served in the State Legisla- 
ture, four terms in Congress, and in the United States 
Senate. 

Hon. George Robertson, the learned and justly cele- 
brated Chief Justice of Kentucky. 

Hon. Charles S. Todd, whose father, Thomas Todd, 
was one of the early Justices of the Supreme Court. He 
served as Colonel in the War of 18 12, was Minister to 
Russia under President Tyler, and filled many other 
positions, State and National. 

Hon. James Speed, a learned and able lawyer. He 
filled many honorable positions in the State, and was 
Attorney-General in President Lincoln's Cabinet. 

Hon. Francis M. Bristow, who was an able lawyer and 
served in the State Legislature, and in Congress, and was 
a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1849. 



The Union Leaders 75 

Hon. William H. Wadsvvorth, the noted lawyer and' 
orator of Maysville. He served in Congress, and was 
tendered the mission to the court of Vienna. 

Hon. William A. Dudley, the prominent railroad 
president of Lexington. 

Hon. John B. Huston, of whom it is said by his 
biographer, "he was one of the most distinguished men 
who supported the policy of the government." 

Hon. George D. Prentice, editor of the Louisville 
Journal, and the most brilliant newspaper writer of his 
day. 

Hon. John H. Harney, editor of the Louisville 
Democrat. 

Hon. A. G. Hodges, editor of the Frankfort 
Com mon wealth . 

Hon. Joseph R. Underwood, of Bowling Green, one 
of the ablest judges who ever served on the bench of the 
Court of Appeals, who also served in the United States 
Senate. 

Hon. Joshua F. Speed, a man of affairs, and great 
ability. He served in the State Legislature; was the 
trusted friend of President Lincoln. 

Hon. Charles A. Marshall, of Maysville, one of the 
celebrated Virginia family. He had served many times 
in the State Legislature, and became Colonel of the i6th 
Kentucky Infantry. 

Hon. Leslie Combs, of Lexington, a lawyer of high 
repute, who had served in the War of 1812, and repre- 
sented his district a number of times in the State 
Legislature. 

Hon. Curtis F. Burnam, of Richmond, prominent in 
the State, and had served in the State Legislature. 

Hon. Henry Pirtle, the eminent Chancellor of Louis- 
ville, distinguished for his great ability and lofty character. 

General T. T. Garrard, of Manchester, who was a 
Captain in the Mexican War, had served in the State 



76 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Senate, and became Brigadier-General in the Union 
army. 

Hon. James G. Garrard, the brother of General 
T. T. Garrard. He had been elected State Treas- 
urer in 1859, at the same time Magoftin was elected 
Governor. 

Colonel James F. Buckner, of Hopkinsville, who had 
been Speaker of the House, and also served in the State 
Senate. He raised one of the first Union regiments in 
the State. 

General William T. Ward, of Greensburg, noted as a 
lawyer, had represented his district in the Legislature, and 
became a Major-General in the Union army. 

Hon. George B. Kinkead, of Lexington, an able 
lawyer, and had served as Secretary of State. 

Hon. Lucien Anderson, of Mayfield, who had served in 
the State Legislature, and also in Congress. 

Hon. John H. McHenry, of Owensboro, who had 
served in the State Legislature, in Congress, and as an 
able Circuit Judge. 

Hon. Thomas E. Bramlette, a Circuit Judge, who raised 
an infantry regiment, and afterwards became Brigadier- 
General and Governor. 

Hon. Jerre T. Boyle, of Danville, a leading lawyer, who 
became Brigadier-General. 

Hon. George T. Wood, of Munfordsville, who several 
times represented his district in the Legislature, and 
was a member of the " Military Board." He was the 
father of General Thomas J. Wood. 

General Thomas J. Wood, educated at West Point, 
served in the Mexican war, became a distinguished 
general in the Union army and in the regular army. 

Hon. Robert Mallory, of Louisville, who served twice 
in Congress. 

Hon. Thomas H. Clay, the second son of Henry Clay, 
and a leading citizen of Kentucky. 



The Union Leaders 77 

Hon. Joseph Holt, of Louisville, in the Cabinet of 
James Buchanan, and of National reputation. 

Hon. David R. Murray, of Cloverport, who had served 
several times in the State Legislature. 

Hon. George H. Yeaman, of Owensboro, a most 
accomplished lawyer, who served in the Legislature, in 
Congress, and as a foreign minister. 

General Speed S. Fry, of Danville, a Mexican veteran, 
who became Brigadier-General in the Union army. 

Hon. Cassius M. Clay, a man of great talents, who was 
appointed Major-General, and also made Minister to 
Russia by President Lincoln. 

Judge R. K. Williams, of Paducah, a leading lawyer, 
who became Judge of the Court of Appeals. 

Judge Jesse W. Kincheloe, of Brandenburg. 

Hon. Brutus J. Clay, of Bourbon County, member o 
the State Legislature. 

Hon. R. A. Buckner, of Lexington, a noted lawyei , 
was Judge of the Court of Appeals; served several times 
in the Legislature and in Congress. 

Dr. Ethelbert L. Dudley, of Lexington, first Colonel 
of the 2 1st Kentucky Infantry, and the father of Mrs. 
General Joseph C. Breckinridge, U.S.A. 

Hon. Thornton F. Marshall, of Bracken County, 
member of the State Senate. 

Hon. James Sudduth, of Bath County. 

Hon. John B. Wilgus, of Lexington. 

Hon. Richard Apperson, of Montgomery, member of 
the State Legislature. 

Hon. Aylette H. Buckner, of Winchester. 

Colonel Thomas M. Green, editor Maysville Eagle , and 
writer of rare ability; served with Colonel William H. 
Wadsworth, commander of the State troops in the 
Maysville district. 

Dr. James M. Bush, of Lexington, Professor in 
Transylvania University. 



78 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Hon. Alfred Allen, of Breckinridge County, member of 
State Legislature, and was Minister to China. 

Hon. A. J. Ballard, a prominent lawyer of Louisville. 

Hon. Nat Wolfe, of Louisville, a noted lawyer, who 
served in the Legislature, House and Senate. 

General James S. Jackson, of Hopkinsville, member of 
Congress, who became a Brigadier-General, and was 
killed at Perryville. 

Hon. A. G. Hobson, of Greensburg, lawyer and 
banker. 

General E. H. Hobson, of Greensburg, who became 
Brigadier-General. 

Judge W. C. Goodloe, of Lexington, Circuit Judge for 
twenty-two years. 

General D. S. Goodloe, Lexington. 

Colonel Leonidas Metcalfe, of Nicholas County, son of 
Governor Metcalfe of Kentucky. 

Hon. John M. Harlan had served as county judge, 
and had made the race for Congress in his district prior 
to the war; was Colonel of the loth Kentucky Infantry; 
Attorney-General of the State, and is now Associate Jus- 
tice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Judge Richard J. Browne, of Springfield, member of 
the State Legislature. 

Hon. William H. Hays, of Springfield, member of the 
State Legislature; became Colonel of the loth Kentucky 
Infantry and Judge of the United States District Court at 
Louisville. 

Colonel William P. Boone, of Louisville, a noted lawyer 
and member of the Legislature, and Colonel 28th 
Kentucky Infantry. 

Hon. James Weir, of Owensboro, a wealthy banker and 
lawyer. 

Judge P. B. Muir, of Louisville, an able lawyer and 
Circuit Judge. 

Hon. Joshua Tevis, of Louisville, several times in the 



The Union Leaders 79 

Legislature, and became Colonel of the loth Kentucky 
Cavalry. 

Colonel Laban T. Moore, of Catlettsburg, a distin- 
guished lawyer, member of Congress and State Legisla- 
ture, and who raised the 14th Kentucky Infantry, of 
which he was Colonel. 

Judge George W. Williams, of Paris, Bourbon County, 
an eminent lawyer and judge, who served in both Houses 
of the Legislature. 

Hon. John A. Prall, of Paris, an eminent lawyer, who 
served in the State Senate. 

Allen A. Burton, of Garrard, who was appointed 
Minister to Colombia. 

R. A. Burton, of Lebanon, a fine lawyer, who served 
in the State Senate and House. 

Hon. John B. Bruner, of Hardinsburg, a noted lawyer 
and member of the State Senate and House of 
Representatives. 

Hon. Aaron Harding, of Boyle, several times in 
Congress. 

Hon. John B. Temple, of Frankfort, a leading banker, 
who became member of the "Military Board." 

Hon. Madison C. Johnson, of Lexington, the learned 
and distinguished lawyer, President of the Northern 
Bank of Kentucky. 

Judge James Stuart, of Brandenburg, a noted lawyer, 
Judge, and member of the Legislature. 

Hon. L. W. Andrews, of Flemingsburg, lawyer and 
statesman, one of the most distinguished men in north- 
eastern Kentucky; served in the Legislature and in 
Congress. 

Judge William V. Loving, of Bowling Green, an able 
lawyer and Judge, who served in the Legislature. 

Hon. Henry Grider, of Bowling Green, an eminent 
lawyer who served in the State Senate and House and also 
in Congress. 



So Union Cause in Kentucky 

Colonel B. C. Grider, of Bowling Green ; was Colonel 
in the Union army. 

Hon. John F. Fisk, of Covington, a leading lawyer, 
served in the State Senate, over which he presided, and 
was ex officio Lieutenant-Governor. 

Hon. J. K. Goodloe, of Louisville, an eminent lawyer, 
member of the Legislature in both Houses. 

Hon. Martin P. Marshall, of Fleming County, a promi- 
nent lawyer and member of the Legislature. 

Colonel George W. Gallup, of Louisa, a leading lawyer 
of that part of the State, and became Colonel of the 14th 
Kentucky Infantry. 

Colonel R. T. Jacob, of Louisville, a lawyer and a 
veteran of the Mexican war, and became Colonel of the 
9th Kentucky Cavalry. 

Hon. Warner L. Underwood, of Bowling Green, a 
prominent lawyer, serving in the State Legislature and in 
Congress. 

Hon. Bland Ballard, of Louisville, a leading lawyer and 
was appointed Judge of the District Court of the 
United States. 

Hon. John W. Barr, an able lawyer who became Judge 
of the District Court of the United States. 

Hon. Caleb W. Logan, Ex-Chancellor of the Louisville 
Chancery Court. 

General Thomas L. Crittenden, of Frankfort, who 
served in the Mexican war on General Taylor's staff, and 
afterwards became Major-General in the civil war and 
Brigadier-General in the regular army. 

General Lovell H. Rosseau, of Louisville, a distin- 
guished lawyer, served in the Mexican war as Captain, 
became Major-General of Volunteers in the Civil War 
and Brigadier-General in the regular army. 

Colonel Curran Pope, of Louisville, was educated at 
West Point, resigned, and was engaged in business in 
Louisville. He raised the 15th Kentucky Infantry, was 



The Union Leaders 8i 

wounded in the battle of Perryville, and died soon 
after. 

General Green Clay Smith, of Richmond, served in the 
Mexican war as Lieutenant, became a lawyer, and rose to 
the rank of Brigadier-General in the Civil War, and after- 
wards member of Congress. 

General William J. Landrum, of Lancaster, served in 
the Mexican war, and became a Brigadier-General in the 
Civil War. 

General John J. Landrum, of Warsaw, served in the 
Mexican war, became member of the Legislature, 185 1, 
was a fine lawyer. He became Colonel of the i8th 
Kentucky Infantry, and Brigadier. 

Colonel Pierce Butler Hawkins, of Bowling Green, 
served in the Legislature, 1850, and afterwards he raised 
the nth Kentucky Infantry. 

Colonel Marion C. Taylor, of Shelbyville. He had 
served in the Legislature, was a lawyer of ability, and 
became Colonel of the 15th Kentucky Infantry. 

General Walter C. Whitaker, of Shelbyville. He was 
a Lieutenant in the Mexican war, served in the Legisla- 
ture, raised the 6th Kentucky Infantry, and became 
Major-General of volunteers. 

General James M. Shackelford, of Madisonville, a fine 
lawyer, served in the Mexican war, raised two regiments, 
the 25th Kentucky Infantry and 8th Cavalry, and be- 
came Brigadier-General, 

Dr. Joshua T. Bradford, of Augusta, "probably the 
second most distinguished surgeon of Kentucky " 
(Collins), who fought a desperate battle with a command 
of Home Guards against a part of Morgan's Cavalry 
(Collins, vol. i., p. 112). 

Dr. T. S. Bell, of Louisville, one of the most 
distinguished and honored physicians of the State. 

Hon. Algernon Sidney Thurston, of Ovvensboro, a 
retired lawyer at the outbreak of the war, but active in 



82 Union Cause in Kentucky 

the politics of the day. He had been Attorney-General 
of Texas. 

Hon. Ben T. Perkins, of Elkton, a prominent lawyer 
of that part of the State. 

Hon. Benjamin H. Bristow, of Hopkinsville, an eminent 
lawyer; served as Colonel in the war; was in the State 
Senate and rose to have a national reputation as Secretary 
of the Treasury. 

Hon. H. G. Petrie, of Elkton, a noted lawyer and 
member of the Legislature, 

Judge John W. Ritter, of Glasgow, an eminent lawyer 
and Judge, and member of the Legislature. 

Hon. George M. Thomas, of Vanceburg, a lawyer, who 
served in the Legislature, represented his district in the 
National Congress, and became U. S. District Attorney 
for Kentucky. 

Hon. Matt Mayes, of Cadiz, a leading, wealthy, and 
influential citizen of that portion of the State. 

Judge John E. Newman, of Bardstown, an able lawyer 
and Circuit Judge. 

Judge W. B. Kinkead, of Lexington, an able lawyer 
and Circuit Judge, who had also served in the 
Legislature. 

General D. W. Lindsey, of Frankfort, who not only 
stood for the Union but served in the field as Colonel of 
the 22d Kentucky Infantry, and as Adjutant-General of 
the State. 

Colonel Thomas B. Cochran, of Shelbyville, a lawyer 
of striking ability, who became Colonel of the 2d 
Kentucky Cavalry, and afterwards Judge of the Chancery 
Court of Louisville. 

General John W. Finnell, of Covington, a lawyer of 
ability, who served in the Legislature in 1845. He became 
the editor of the Frankfort Commonwealth, and was 
appointed Secretary of State by Governor Crittenden, 
and was Adjutant-General under Governor Robinson. 



The Union Leaders 83 

Silas F. Miller, of Louisville, prominent as a business 
man. 

Captain Z. M. Sherley, of Louisville, prominent as a 
business man. 

Sam Gill, of Louisville, prominent in railroad affairs, 
and became a member of the "Military Board." 

B. F. Avery, of Louisville, prominent as a business 
man. 

Hon. John W. Menzies, of Covington, an able lawyer; 
served in the Legislature, 1848 and 1855, and was elected 
to Congress, June, 1861. 

Judge T. T. Alexander, of Columbia, a lawyer of 
ability, Circuit Judge, and public-spirited citizen. 

Dr. George D. Blakey, of Russellville, later of Bowling 
Green. 

Hon. John G. Barret, lawyer and banker, of Louisville. 

Hon. Sidney M. Barnes, of Estill County ; a lawyer 
of note, served in the State Senate and House, 1848, 
1857, and was candidate for Governor. He raised and 
commanded the 8th Kentucky Infantry. 

Judge M. H. Owsley, of Lancaster, a lawyer and 
Circuit Judge. 

Philip Swigert, of Frankfort, born 1798, a most 
influential citizen. During the war he was secretary of 
the " Military Board." 

Hon. Joseph B. Kinkead, of Louisville, a wealthy and 
influential lawyer. 

Hon. Hamilton Pope, of Louisville, a distinguished 
lawyer, early in the war became commander of the Louis- 
ville Home Guard. 

Colonel Charles D. Pennebaker, of Lousville, a lawyer. 
He served in the Mexican war, in the State Legislature, 
and was Colonel of the 27th Kentucky Infantry. 

Hon. Joshua F. Bullitt, Judge of the Court of 
Appeals, and one of the most eminent and honored men 
in the State; he was a Union leader all through the 



84 Union Cause in Kentucky 

year 1861. The charges of bad faith so freely made 
against those leaders fall upon him as well as others, 
which goes to prove how baseless were all such charges. 

Hon. George W. Dunlap, of Lancaster, a prominent 
lawyer and member of Congress. 

Hon. R. Tarvin Baker, of Campbell County, a noted 
lawyer, member of the Legislature, 1849, ^^^o was State 
Senator. 

Captain George M. Adams, a business man of 
Barbourville. 

Hon. John H. McFarland, of Owensboro, who was a 
prominent lawyer and had served in the Legislature. 

M. M. Benton, of Covington, lawyer, railroad presi- 
dent, and member of the Legislature. 

Reuben Mundy, of Madison County, member of the 
State Senate, afterwards Colonel of the 6th Kentucky 
Cavalry. 

Colonel Lyne Starling, of Frankfort. 

Hon. A. G. Hobson, of Bowling Green. 

Hon. Burrell C. Ritter, of Hopkinsville, member of 
State Senate and lower House, and also member of 
Congress. 

George P. Doern, editor of the Louisville Anzeiger , who 
represented the practically unanimous German element of 
the State. 

Hon. William H. Randall, of London, a Circuit Judge, 
and twice member of Congress. 

Hon. Q. C. Shanks, a prominent man of Hartford, 
who raised and led the 12th Kentucky Cavalry. 

To this list, already prolonged beyond the limits at first 
assigned, might be added many others. Those who are 
named were not simply " Union men." They were 
recognized leaders among the people. 

The first suggestion was to name twenty-five of the 
most distinguished, but the list easily enlarged to fifty, 
and as easily grew to a hundred, and to a hundred and 



The Union Leaders 85 

fifty and more. There is no intention to attempt to name 
all the Union men who were prominent : the purpose is to 
direct attention to the fact that the Union leaders were 
numerous, and that they were the conspicuous men in 
the State and in every community. Those named were 
native-born Kentuckians, and had filled honorable 
positions before the war. They were men of the highest 
character, intellectually, morally, and socially. They 
were qualified for leadership, and this position was 
naturally accorded to them by their fellow-citizens. They 
were capable of forming and directing public sentiment, 
and in the great emergency of 1861 they threw them- 
selves into the struggle for the Union. They were not 
of the class who acted individually in thinking and 
voting, but who were active, energetic, and positive in 
efforts to accomplish a great purpose. They worked 
for the cause of the Union, giving their time and talents 
and means. They originated and carried out move- 
ments at large, and in their respective localities. They 
inaugurated meetings and attended them, and made 
patriotic speeches, unsparingly and unselfishly promoting 
by all of the means in their power the cause of the Union 
as against the industrious effort to create a feeling among 
the people tending to secession. 

Associated with these leaders were hundreds who 
were men of weight in their respective communities. 
These all catching inspiration from the recognized lead- 
ers, exerted an influence upon the masses and gave 
direction to the voting. If such had not been the case, 
it is possible the heart of the people might have been 
fired with the inflammatory utterances intended to carry 
them into secession. With the splendid leadership which 
marked the Union cause in Kentucky there naturally 
followed a consistent and steady adherence to the Union 
on the part of the Kentucky voters. There is nothing 
but reason and calm, intelligent judgment in the spectacle 



86 Union Cause in Kentucky 

of the voting in iS6o and 1861. The presence of 
passion and excitement would have carried the people in 
the other direction. 

When, therefore, the present glory of the American 
Republic is contemplated, and when we reflect that the 
views of Abraham Lincoln might have been correct, that 
" Kentucky would be a turning weight in the scale of 
war," the feeling must arise that the country owes a 
debt of gratitude to the great men of Kentucky who, at 
the critical moment, exerted all their energies, and 
devoted all their abilities to the task of saving Kentucky 
to the Union. It is true that when, under the inevitable 
workings of the law of progressive development, Mr. 
Lincoln's ideas on the subject of the slaves advanced from 
what they were at the outset to such as produced the 
Emancipation Proclamation, the views of many persons 
in Kentucky did not advance with his. Some became anti- 
Lincoln, but they were still Unionists. They did not by 
any means join in the rebellion. The extent of their 
opposition to Lincoln was an active support of McClellan, 
with the universally expressed view that he would bring 
about the restoration of the Union. They supported 
him because of his avowed purpose, if elected, to use all 
the men and money necessary to suppress the rebellion 
and maintain the authority of the Union. 



CHAPTER VII 

ELECTIONS IN 1 86 1 

THREE general elections occurred in Kentucky in 
the year 1861, all of which showed unmistakably 
that the people did not favor the Southern movement, 
but were heartily on the side of the Union. 

The first of these elections took place May 4th, and 
was for delegates to the Border State convention which 
had been called to meet at Frankfort May 27th. There 
were in the field two sets of candidates, one being all Union 
men of pronounced type, the other all Southern Rights 
men. During the canvass, on April 29th, the Southern 
Rights candidates were withdrawn by the committee of 
that party, the reason for doing so alleged to be that they 
were charged with favoring secession, but the real reason, 
doubtless, was that it was apparent that they would be 
defeated. The Union candidates, however, stood for 
election and were voted for. They were John J. 
Crittenden, James Guthrie, R. K. Williams, F. M. 
Bristow, Joshua F. Bell, John B. Huston, Archibald 
Dixon, Charles A. Wickliffe, Charles S. Morehead. The 
vote cast for these men was 1 10,000, or more than two 
thirds of the total vote cast for all the Presidential 
candidates in November, i860. This vote was cast after 
the secession of ten of the States; after the organization 
of the Southern Confederacy; and after the State 
Legislature had refused to call a convention to consider 
secession. It was regarded as a most decided expression 
in favor of the .Union, and against seceding. It made a 

87 



88 Union Cause in Kentucky 

profound impression upon the country. Hon. Joseph 
Holt, at that time in Washington, wrote his memorable 
letter to Joshua F. Speed at Louisville, which began with 
the words : 

"The recent overwhelming vote in favor of the Union 
in Kentucky has afforded unspeakable gratification to 
all true men throughout the country." 

The second election was on the 20th of June, and was 
a congressional election. President Lincoln had called a 
special session of Congress to meet July 4th, and this 
rendered it necessary to hold a special election for 
Congressmen in the State of Kentucky. Union candi- 
dates were nominated and also Southern Rights or 
secession candidates. Nine of the ten elected were 
Union men, and the popular majority in the State was 
54,670. This tremendous majority was not made up by 
an overwhelming vote in any particular section, but was 
fairly distributed all over the State, as the following 
statement in detail shows: 

In the First District, which was the extreme west end 
of the State, Henry C. Burnett, States Rights, 8988; 
his opponent, Lawrence S. Trimble, Union, 6225, the 
majority of the district being 2763 against the Union 
and in favor of secession. In this connection it is proper 
to state that Mr. Burnett, instead of sitting in the 
National Congress, went South in the fall of 1861 and 
represented Kentucky in the Confederate Congress. 

In the Second District, also in the western part of the 
State, James S. Jackson, Union, 9271 ; his opponent, 
John T. Bunch, secessionist, 3368; majority for the 
Union, 5903. Jackson went to Congress, but in a few 
weeks resigned his seat to go back to Kentucky to raise 
troops for the Union cause. He raised and organized the 
magnificent Third Kentucky Cavalry, became its Colonel, 
was made Brigadier-General, and was killed at PerryviUe 
October 8, 1862. 



Elections in 1861 89 

In the Third District, central southern part of the 
State, Henry Grider, the Union candidate, received 
10,392 votes, and his opponent, Joseph H. Lewis, 31 13; 
majority, 7259. Lewis went into the Confederacy and 
became a Brigadier-General. 

In the Fourth District, central southern, Aaron Hard- 
ing, Union, 10344; A. G. Talbott, 2469; Union majority, 

7875. 

In the Fifth District, central, Charles A. Wickliffe, 
Union, 8217, and his opponent. Read, 2719; Union 
majority, 5498.' 

In the Sixth District, central, George W. Dunlap, 
Union, 8181 ; scattering, 229. 

In the Seventh District, which included Louisville, 
Robert Mallory, Union, 11,035; his opponent, H. W. 
Bruce, 2862; majority, 8173. Mr. Bruce afterwards went 
South and became a Congressman from Kentucky in the 
Confederacy. 

In the Eighth District, which included Frankfort and 
Lexington, John J. Crittenden, Union, 8272; his 
opponent, William E. Simms, 5706; majority, 2366. 

In the Ninth District, which included Maysville, 
William H. Wadsworth, Union, 12,230; his opponent, 
John S. Williams, 3720 ; majority, 8510. Williams 
afterward became a Brigadier-General in the Confederacy, 
while Wadsworth fought for the Union and was the 
principal figure in the Union cause in his part of the 
State. 

In the Tenth District, John W. Menzies, Union, 
8370; his opponent, O. P. Hogan, 4526; majority, 

3847- 

The third election in Kentucky in 1861 was on the fifth 
day of August, being an election for representatives in 
the State Legislature. Two weeks prior to August 5th 
the battle of Bull Run had been fought. The occurrence 

' See Appendix, § 8, p. 343. 



•^ 



90 Union Cause in Kentucky 

of an event so significant was certainly calculated to 
enlighten the Kentucky people on the subject of the war. 
It was plain the issue had to be fought out, and the issue 
was between the Federal government and the newly 
organized Confederacy. How did the people vote when 
the issue thus confronted them so plainly? 

The remarkable fact is they voted for the Union by a 
larger majority than ever before. One hundred and 
three Unionists were elected to the State Legislature — 
Senate and House — and thirty-eight of the opposing 
party. The popular majority was increased over that of 
June. When these majorities are considered, being 
between fifty and sixty thousand, and when it is under- 
stood that they were absolutely free elections, without 
interference of any kind, as at that time there were no 
soldiers of either side in the State, it becomes manifest 
beyond any possible cavil that Kentucky voted against 
secession, and took her stand for the Union. 

It is of interest here to mention the vote cast at this 
election in the city of Louisville, the metropolis of the 
State. James Speed, Union candidate for the State 
Senate, received 4788 votes. His opponent, JefTerson 
Brown, 605. A. B. Semple, Union candidate for the 
State Senate, received 4615. His opponent, Gamble, 
902. For the lower House: 

Beeman, Union, 2141; his opponent, Brinly, 63 

Nat. Wolfe, Union, 1680 ; his opponent, Rudd, 321 

W. P. Boone, Union, 1990 ; his opponent, Joyes, 351 

Joshua Tevis, Union, 958; his opponent, Johnston, 305 

In the county of Jefferson, being the county in which 

Louisville is situated, the Union veteran editor of the 

Louisville Democrat, John H. Harney, received 1583 

votes, and his opponent, David Meriwether, 628. 

It would be difficult to find any instance, in any State 
or country, where questions are determined by voting, a 
more satisfactory settlement of any question than that of 



Elections in 1861 91 

union or secession in Kentucky. The people at absolutely 
free and untrammelled elections, declared against going 
South and in favor of the Union. It is surprising, there- 
fore, to find in histories written since the war, expressions 
to the contrary. In Z. F. Smith's History of Kentucky 
(p. 610) he mentions the June and August elections, and 
says: 

"It were well-nigh certain that if a sovereignty convention 
could have been called at any time before the formation of 
the Union sentiment and policy into active and aggressive life, 
the State would have been carried off into the act of seces- 
sion as Virginia and Tennessee were by the sense of sympathy 
and kinship toward the South." 

This is the view also of Shaler (p. 240), who says : 

"There is reason to believe that this course [neutrality] was 
the only one that could have kept Kentucky from secession. 
If what had been unhappily named a Sovereignty Convention 
had been called in 1861 ; if the State had been compelled to ac- 
cept the decision of a body of men who were acting under the 
control of no constitutional enunciation, the sense of sympathy 
and kinship with the Southern States, such as would easily 
grow up under popular oratory in a mob, would probably have 
precipitated action." 

This is simply speculation, not history, and the 
speculation is contradicted by the historic facts. The 
Union leaders of the time may well have dreaded the 
possibilities of a convention, and were wise to oppose 
this first step leading toward possible secession. But the 
historian, looking back upon the voting of i860 and upon 
the voting of 1861, can see with undimmed vision that 
the people of Kentucky deeply and truly sided with the 
Union against all the allurements to go South. They 
were in serious earnest in regarding secession as no 
remedy for anything. If a convention had been called it 
is clear now that Union men would have been elected to 



92 Union Cause in Kentucky 

it. There is nothing to indicate that the complexion of 
such a convention would have been anything else than 
Union. The people elected all Union men to the 
Border State convention in May; they elected nine of 
the ten Congressmen in June, and two thirds of the 
Legislature in August. The men they elected were true 
to the trust reposed in them. Why should it be sup- 
posed for a moment that the case would have been 
different if the people had elected members to a 
convention? 

The important historic fact is, that the people of 
Kentucky voted for and elected Union men at every elec- 
tion when called upon to vote. 

It will be seen, however, that the leaders of the 
secession movement were not satisfied. They professed 
" States Rights " doctrine, but they were not content to 
let their own State determine for herself. To the 
extent these leaders went South and influenced others to 
go with them, all went contrary to the expressed will of 
their State. It will be seen that they acted toward 
Kentucky as though it had no right to remain in the 
Union. Beaten overwhelmingly at the polls, they went 
into the armies of the Confederate States, and came back 
to coerce their own State; fighting for States Rights, 
and yet disregarding the rights of their own State ; 
fighting against "coercion" and yet striving to "coerce" 
their own State out of her chosen position into one they 
chose for her, and one which she solemnly protested 
against. 

Applying all the tests conceivable, the position of the 
Kentucky Unionists, from first to last, was absolutely 
right. 

In the first place, they had the right to adhere to the 
Union if they so chose. No matter how much it may be 
urged that they had the right to secede, no one can deny 
that they had the right to refuse to secede. In the 



Elections in 1861 93 

second place, the people having voted to remain in the 
Union, upon any theory of "States Rights," the Unionists 
who followed the flag of the Union afterward did so in 
obedience to the will of the people expressed at the polls. 
In the third place, the people of Kentucky were right in re- 
maining true to the Union. Their expression, "secession 
is a remedy for no evil," was absolutely true. Secession 
meant a broken-up Union and a broken-up Republic. It 
was inherently fallacious and wrong. Its failure estab- 
lished the Union and our great Republic on a firmer basis 
than it ever had before, and instead of our land being 
Mexicanized, the triumph of the Union cause has 
brought a greatness and grandeur to the United States 
inexpressible in language. Not only have we a restored 
Union, but a perfected Union. 

It is unfortunate that the historians place so little 
emphasis upon the elections in Kentucky which have 
been mentioned. They were intensely significant, and 
really meant everything at the time. Shaler does not 
mention the remarkable vote for members to the Border 
State convention, which, as Hon. Joseph Holt said, so 
profoundly impressed the whole country. 

He mentions the election of Congressmen in June in 
three lines only, and he devotes only seven lines to the 
August election, simply mentioning that it occurred and 
the result, but adds no comment to point its significance 
(p. 247). 

Z. F. Smith briefly says: 

"They greatly deterred the leaders in sympathy with 
the South, and correspondingly encouraged the friends 
of the Union," 

He then adds the "if" already mentioned, to the effect 
that the result would have been different if the people 
could have voted for members of a convention (p. 6io). 

Hodge, writing in Collins, does not mention the vote 
for members of the Border State convention, nor the 



94 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

June election for Congressmen, but has the following 
singular remark about the August election : 

"The sympathizers with the Confederacy did not 
contest to any considerable extent the election of 
August, 1861. Consequently, the supporters of the 
Federal government were largely in the ascendant in the 
next Legislature" (vol. i., p. 243). 

It is remarkable that such a statement should be made. 
Why did they not contest? They had candidates in 
the field. The complaint of military interference could 
not be made, for this was before any soldiers were in the 
State. 

The same writer(Hodge) gives an account of a resolution 
he himself introduced in the Legislature the preceding 
spring, providing that there should be a vote of the people 
upon the question "Shall there be a convention? " and if 
a majority should vote in the affirmative, then a conven- 
tion should be called. "But," says Hodge, "this and 
every other effort for an appeal to the people was steadily 
resisted ; the opponents of it and kindred propositions, de- 
nying the right of the State to secede from the Union un- 
der any circumstances. ' ' So this author, who was an actor 
in the affairs of that day, complains, in writing its history, 
that efforts for an appeal to the people were resisted, and 
yet when that appeal was made, complacently says his 
people did not contest the election, and on that account 
the other side won. Why did they not contest? This 
was the time of all others to do it. It was an election 
for members of the State Legislature. If enough Southern 
sympathizers should be elected to control that body, 
which was to meet September 2d, they could then get all 
that was refused by the Legislature of the past spring. 
Why did they not bring out that vast vote which they 
claimed they had, and thus get control of the State? 
Was it because there was a feeling that the vote for 
Congressmen in the June previous had settled the 



Elections in 1861 95 

question? There would be some plausibility in such a 
statement. The simple truth is, there was nothing 
singular, or unusual, or out of the ordinary, in that 
August election. For many years it had been the custom 
of the Kentucky people to vote at the "regular August 
election." That was known to be "election day." It 
was a day they counted forward to and dated back to. 
They might be indifferent to some special election, but 
hardly to the "regular August election." Nor is there 
anything but assertion in the statement made by Hodge 
implying indifference. The regular vote of the State was 
polled, only it went solid against the secessionist party. 
The appeal was made to the people, and the Union cause 
won by a great majority, and upon that ground Hodge 
could truthfully say, "consequently, the supporters of 
the Federal government were largely in the ascendancy 
in the next Legislature." 

The significance of the vote in August, 1861, deserves 
to be especially emphasized. The claim was falsely made 
at the time that the vote was "in favor of neutrality," 
and since the war the statement has been repeated. In 
October, 1861, John C. Breckinridge issued an address to 
the people of Kentucky from Bowling Green, in which 
he said : 

" In every form by which you could give direct expression 
to your will, you declared for neutrality. A large majority of 
the people at the June and August elections voted for the 
neutrahty and peace of Kentucky. The press, the public 
speakers^ the candidates (with the exception of those in favor 
of the government at Washington, so rare as not to need men- 
tion) planted themselves on this position. You voted for it 
and you meant it. You were promised it and you expected 
it. The minority acquiesced in good faith, and at home and 
abroad this was recognized as the fixed position of the State. 
It was taken at the beginning of hostilities, and it is but rea- 
sonable to infer that every subsequent act of outrage by the 



96 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Washington government has confirmed your original purpose. 
Look, now, at the condition of Kentucky, and see how your 
expectations have been realized — how these promises have 
been redeemed. First, by the aid of some citizens of the 
State some arms belonging to the whole people were illegally 
and secretly introduced by order of the President, and dis- 
tributed to one class of our people upon the false pretence 
that they needed them for protection against their own fellow- 
citizens. This was the first violation. 

Next, Federal military officers began to recruit soldiers and 

establish camps in our midst For a time it was 

denied that they were Federal camps, and it was said that 
they were merely voluntary assemblages of Kentuckians for 
their own protection and that of the State. These monstrous 
falsehoods have since been freely exposed. This was the 
second violation." 

Such expressions have found their way into historic 
writings since the war, to give the impression that the 
Kentucky people did not vote for the Union, but for 
neutrality, and that thereupon the Lincoln government, 
through the treachery of the Union leaders, seized the 
State and held it in the Union against the will of the 
people. 

Shaler in his history gives out this idea. In his brief 
allusion to the August election he says: "The regular 
election on the first Monday in August gave the first 
distinct impression of the will of the neutrality party"; 
and adds: "the neutrality party had now obtained full 
control of the State Legislature" (p. 247). 

The complete answer to such misrepresentation is found 
in the great outstanding facts of the time. The legislators 
who were elected could not have differed wholly and 
altogether from their constituents, and three weeks after 
their election they convened, and controlled the State 
absolutely for the Union. They passed laws for the 
vigorous prosecution of the war, and for large appropria- 



Elections in 1861 97 

tions therefor, and for the expulsion of the Confederate 
armies from the State, even passing them over Governor 
Magoffin's vetoes. 

Again, let it be noted that when Confederate General 
Polk came into Kentucky in September he justified his 
movement on the ground, among others, that the people 
of Kentucky had violated neutrality by their representa- 
tives in Congress voting men and money to carry on the 
war against the South. His language was: 

"She has by her members in the Congress of the 
United States voted supplies of men and money to carry 
on the war against the Confederate States." 

Now, if General Polk knew what the Kentucky Con- 
gressmen, who were elected in June, 1861, were doing, 
shall it be said that the people of Kentucky did not know? 
Yet, when the election came on in August they, instead 
of rebuking their representatives, elected a State Legisla- 
ture composed of men precisely like those representatives 
in Congress, which Legislature ordered General Polk to 
retire from the State. 

Those representatives in Congress were elected by 
Kentucky Unionists, not by men whose allegiance might 
fall either way. Those representatives knew that neu- 
trality was for the purpose of mediation and possible 
peace, but never looked to abandonment of the Union or 
drifting into the Confederacy. Therefore, it is perfectly 
natural that in the records we find manifestations of this 
well understood sentiment. On the 29th of July, 1861, 
these records show that President Lincoln desired that 
Jesse Bayles should raise a regiment in Kentucky, and 
that consent was given by representatives in Congress, 
Mallory, Grider, Dunlap, J. S. Jackson, and Charles A. 
Wickliffe {War Records, Serial No. 122, p. 364). 

Also, in a speech in Congress, the most distinguished 
one of these representatives — Hon. Charles A. Wick- 
liffe — said on the subject of raising means to carry on 
7 



98 Union Cause in Kentucky 

the war : "I want the whole resources of the government 
resorted to, as was the case in the war of 1812 " ; and in 
the course of his speech said: "I have never sought to 
distract and divide the Union. I have never sympathized 
with a rebellion against the glory and honor and even 
the existence of my beloved country" {Congressional 
Globe). 

Furthermore, one of the great outstanding facts of the 
period was that the constituents of the Union delegation 
in Congress, and the Union Legislature, responded to the 
call for troops with a zeal which is described as having 
"sprung to the country's defence." 

If the vote had been for neutrality, as stated by Breck- 
inridge, his address to the Kentucky people might have 
fallen upon ears less deaf to his portrayal of the 
"usurpations," and "despotisms," and "atrocious 
doctrines," and "insincerity," and " falsehoods," and 
"betrayals," and "hirelings," and "outrages" of the 
Federal government and all that pertained to it. 

It may be further said that as the people of Kentucky 
in i860 manifested their preference for the Union over 
the clamor for Southern Rights, so when they came to 
vote in 1861 there was no change, but only a more 
decided stand and firmer determination not to yield to 
any of the seductions looking to the dismemberment of 
the Union. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE "LINCOLN GUNS " 

THE details of a very interesting episode in the 
beginning of the war, known as the bringing of 
the ** Lincoln guns " into Kentucky, are not given in any 
history. They were made known to the present writer 
by some of the participants, all of whom are now dead. 
Fortunately for history, an account was carefully written 
and published in the Magazine of American History hy 
Rev. Daniel Stevenson. Dr. Stevenson had personal 
acquaintance with many of the men who were instru- 
mental in obtaining these guns, and his information was 
derived from them. 

President Lincoln was watching the state of affairs in 
Kentucky with intense solicitude, and was kept advised 
of every step taken, principally through his personal 
friend, Joshua F. Speed of Louisville. He knew of the 
existence of the armed and equipped State Guard, and 
he knew that while the Unionists in the State largely pre- 
dominated, yet they were unorganized and had no arms. 
There was perplexity in the question as to what was to 
be done, and before any solution was offered, the man 
for the times came voluntarily upon the scene. This was 
Lieutenant William Nelson, a Kentuckian who had been 
upon a visit to his native State, and had learned the 
nature of the situation. It was early in May, 1861, 
when he called to see the President and laid before him 
his plan for furnishing arms to the Kentucky Unionists. 
The President approved his plan and agreed to furnish 

99 



loo Union Cause in Kentucky 

him five thousand muskets to be distributed by him in 
Kentucky. The guns were shipped from Washington to 
Cincinnati, to which place Nelson proceeded and for- 
warded some of the arms to Jeffersonville, Indiana, 
opposite Louisville. From Cincinnati Nelson went to 
Louisville and had a private interview with Mr. Speed. 
A correct account is given by Dr. Stevenson : 

"Mr. Speed was sitting at his table with some papers before 
him when a large man entered, who, after glancing around 
the room, apparently to see if there was more than one person 
present, asked if he were Mr. Speed. On being told that he 
was, he asked if he were Joshua Speed. 

" 'That is my name' was the response. 

"'Is there another room to this office?' was the next 
question. 

" 'There is.' 

" 'Is there any one in that room? ' 

" 'There is not.' 

" *I should like, Mr. Speed, to see you in that room for a 
short time.' 

"Mr. Speed rose and led the way, when the stranger turned 
and locked the door behind him." 

When seated, Nelson made himself known and stated 
the object of his visit. He desired Mr. Speed to go to 
Frankfort with him to consult with prominent Union 
men there. They went that afternoon. On the same 
train went also Mr. Speed's brother, Hon. James Speed. 
That night a consultation was held at the office of Hon. 
James Harlan, who was the father of Justice John M. 
Harlan of the United States Supreme Court. There 
were present James Harlan, John J. Crittenden, Charles 
A. Wickliffe, Garrett Davis, Thornton F. Marshall, James 
Speed, Joshua F. Speed, and Lieutenant Nelson. 

It was felt by all that the utmost caution was necessary, 
as mismanagement might cause the guns to fall into the 
hands of the other party, and it was agreed that orders 



The ** Lincoln Guns " loi 

for the guns were to be given by men in different localities 
in the State to be countersigned by Joshua F. Speed. 
Twelve hundred guns were assigned to Louisville. They 
were brought to Louisville, stored in the court-house, 
and, under the direction of Major John W. Barr, were 
issued to the Louisville Home Guards. Some of the guns 
from Jeffersonville were sent to Shelbyville for the 
Home Guard company at that place, commanded by Dr. 
William Bailey.' Enough were also sent to Hopkinsville 
to arm one company in the regiment raised there by 
Colonel James F. Buckner. In other places Home 
Guard companies were formed as soon as they found that 
they could be armed. The following extracts from 
the account prepared by Dr. Stevenson show how the 
Lincoln guns were distributed in other sections of the 
State : 

" The guns for the counties of Bourbon, Fayette, Clark, 
and Montgomery were sent up by the Kentucky Central Rail- 
road. The shipment of these guns took place on the 17th of 
May. Mr. John D. Hearne, at that time of Paris, now of Cov- 
ington, took an active part in the work. He says that all was 
kept profoundly secret till the departure of the afternoon train 
on the Kentucky Central Railroad, when a man designated 
for the purpose was stationed in the telegraph office at Coving- 
ton, to prevent any information being sent on the wires. 
Trains of wagons were hastily loaded in Cincinnati with the 
guns and sent across the river to the Kentucky Central depot 
in Covington, where cars were speedily placed in a position to 
receive the arms. 

" ' Cincinnati had at that time ' says Mr. Hearne, *a large 
volunteer patrol, a kind of home guard, whose self-imposed 
duty, among others, was to prevent any contraband articles 
from going into Kentucky, without special permission from 
some self-appointed committee who heard and passed upon all 
applications, and whose determination was final. Squarely 

' See Appendix, ^ 9, p. 344. 



I02 Union Cause in Kentucky 

up against this patrol came Lieutenant Nelson and the first 
wagon in the line loaded with muskets and ammunition. As 
they approached the ferry and were notified what credentials 
were necessary before being permitted to pass, Nelson de- 
manded from whence came the authority to stop him, an 
officer of the United States government, and with language 
more forcible than elegant informed Mr. Patrol that if another 
of his teams were stopped, he would have the person who 
stopped it sent to a military prison. I need scarcely say that 
no more wagons were stopped. The train was loaded and left 
the depot at ii o'clock that night, and before daylight the 
next morning the guns for Bourbon, Clark, and Montgomery 
counties were landed at Paris and those for Fayette county at 
Lexington.' 

" These last were directed to the care of Mr. Hiram Shaw, 
Sr., whose loyalty and decision of character made him con- 
spicuous among the Union men in that part of the State. 
The guns for Clark and Montgomery counties had to be 
hauled from Paris to Winchester and Mt. Sterling, the county- 
seats respectively of those counties, in wagons; Winchester 
being about sixteen miles distant and Mt. Sterling about 
twenty. The men who took the guns from Paris to Mt. Ster- 
ling were intercepted by spies, but, showing a determined 
purpose, no attack was made upon them. Before sunset of 
that day the guns for these four counties, all in the heart of 
the Blue Grass portion of the State, were in the hands of men 
pledged to use them for the maintenance of the Union and 
whom it would have been hazardous to provoke to a trial of 
their ability to use them. 

" On the day on which the guns for the counties just named 
were shipped by cars from Covington, others were shipped by 
boat directly from Cincinnati, up the Ohio River, The latter 
were tor the counties of Mason and Nicholas. The boat con- 
taining them reached its destination, Maysville, the county- 
seat of Mason County, early in the night, while the train 
bearing the others was making its way along the track that fol- 
lows the tortuous course of the Licking River. The next morn- 
ing, while the Union men of Lexington and Paris were unbox- 



The ''Lincoln Guns" 103 

ing the guns sent to them, and the men from Winchester and 
Mt. Sterling were loading wagons with theirs, the men of Mays- 
ville were rejoicing in the possession of a similar treasure. The 
Hon. William H. Wadsworth was the commander of the Home 
Guards of Maysville. The guns intended for Nicholas County- 
were in charge of Colonel Leonidas Metcalfe, a citizen of that 
county, and a son of a former Governor of Kentucky and 
Senator of the United States. 

" The news of the arrival of the guns at Paris and Lexington 
and Maysville, all three prominent places, spread like wild- 
fire. About the time when Colonel Metcalfe was well on his 
way, by turnpike, with the arms for Nicholas County, a meet- 
ing of disunionists and neutrality men was called at Carlisle, 
the county-seat of that county, at which a committee was 
appointed to go down the turnpike, in the direction of Mays- 
ville, and meet Colonel Metcalfe, and protest that the intro- 
duction of the guns could only result in an immediate and 
sanguinary conflict. This committee met the Colonel with 
the wagon containing the guns a little north of the Blue Licks 
Springs, and delivered their message, which was, in the most 
unequivocal terms, that the guns must not be brought to Car- 
lisle, and that seventy-five men were banded together to come 
to the turnpike bridge at the Blue Licks, and prevent them 
from being taken beyond it. Colonel Metcalfe had with him, 
besides the driver, only two other men, citizens of his county; 
but he was fearless and determined, and he said, in response 
to the bearers of the message, in language made emphatic by 
an oath, that they might go back and tell the men who had 
sent them, that seventy-five of them might come to the bridge, 
but that seventy-five would never go back to Carlisle; and with 
that he told his driver to drive on. Nobody met him at the 
bridge, and that night the guns were received by men awaiting 
the Colonel's arrival, at his residence, on the turnpike, about 
two miles from Carlisle in whose hands he knew they would 
do no harm to the government. 

" The number of guns received at this time into the State 
was believed by disunionists to be much larger than it really 
was. A prominent Southern sympathizer, writing at the time 



I04 Union Cause in Kentuck}/ 

to another prominent Southern sympathizer, estimated the 
number that was landed at Maysville at two thousand five 
hundred, the number that was sent up into the Blue Grass 
section at five thousand, and the whole number that had been 
received at Cincinnati for distribution in Kentucky at fifteen 
thousand. Each gun was thus made to have the moral effect 
of three or four. 



"Efforts had been made by General Speed S. Fry, at that 
time Captain Fry, of Danville, the county-seat of Boyle 
County in the centre of the State, to procure arms for a 
Home Guard company of that place, from General Simon 
Bolivar Buckner, commander of the State Guard, but in vain. 
Hearing that Lieutenant Nelson had guns for distribution to 
such companies. General Fry, in company with Wellington Har- 
lan, William Goodloe, and Stephen G. Cloyd, of Boyle County, 
and Dr. Stephen Burdett and Osburn Dunn, of Garrard, an 
adjoining county, went to Cincinnati with the hope of procur- 
ing guns for companies in Jessamine, Garrard, Mercer, Lin- 
coln, and Boyle counties. On reaching Cincinnati they found 
the city in a state of intense excitement, business of all kinds 
seemingly suspended, and the war the only subject of conver- 
sation. They found Lieutenant Nelson in a cheerful and 
affable state of mind; and when the object of their mission 
was made known, a prompt affirmative response was given by 
him to their requests. He informed them, however, that the 
excitement in Cincinnati had become so intense, when it had 
become known that he had arms in his possession for distri- 
bution among the Home Guards of Kentucky, that he had 
been compelled to ship all the arms consigned to him to the 
care of Mr. Hamilton Gray of the city of Maysville. This 
excitement had arisen in consequence of the idea that Ken- 
tucky loyalty was of so doubtful a type as to render it danger- 
ous to the interests, not only of Cincinnati, but also of the 
government, to entrust guns to the hands of citizens of 
Kentucky. 

"He at once gave General Fry an order on Mr. Gray for 



The "Lincoln Guns" 105 

seven hundred guns; and the general and his companions, 
without delay, proceeded by boat to Maysville. On present- 
ing their order there they were informed that it would be filled 
as soon as conveyance for the guns could be obtained, as it 
was deemed best to take them by the way of the Maysville 
and Lexington turnpike, although the route lay through cer- 
tain sections where Southern sympathizers predominated. 
The distance from Maysville to Danville by this way is about 
ninety miles. They procured two wagons, one drawn by six 
horses and the other by two. It was late in the day before the 
loading was completed, and the sun had set by the time they 
reached the top of the hill just in the rear of the city. 
There they encamped for the night, and made a very early 
start the next morning. 

" Before starting, having apprehension that they might en- 
counter some trouble on the way, they took the precaution to 
load six of the guns with buck and ball, and to lay them in 
the box hung in the rear of the larger wagon. They expected 
to get their breakfast at some convenient point on the way. 
In the course of an hour they passed the house of a good 
Union man, and an old acquaintance of General Fry, who 
compelled the General to come in and take breakfast with 
him. After breakfast this gentleman brought out his buggy 
and took the General on in it till they overtook the other men, 
who had gone ahead with the wagons. The rest took breakfast 
at Mayslick, twelve miles from Maysville. 'As all our move- 
ments,' says the commander of this little force, 'had been of 
a public character — the loading of the guns upon the wagons, 
and our departure with them from Maysville, — there were 
doubtless those who were watching us with a view of bearing 
intelligence of our coming to different points on the road; for 
as we entered the little town of Mayslick we found the streets 
thronged with men and boys, the larger mass of whom had 
come from their homes in the country to witness the passing 
of the approaching little army with its munitions of war; and 
doubtless also to join in any attempt that might be made to 
take the guns from us. It was very evident that nearly all 
this assemblage, judging from the frowning aspect depicted 



io6 Union Cause in Kentucky 

in their countenances, were of the extreme Southern type in 
sympathy and sentiment.* 

" 'Just before entering the town, being myself,' says the 
General, ' in front, and walking alone behind the larger wagon, 
a gentleman came to the front door of his dwelling, which he 
opened only sufficiently wide (he was doubtless a Union man) 
to exhibit his head, waved his hand to me to stop, and then, 
in a tone barely loud enough for me to hear him, said, "Do 
not go into the town with those guns," and then suddenly 
disappeared. I halted the larger wagon. The other portion 
of my company had betaken themseves to the top of the smaller 
wagon to give rest to their weary limbs. When they came up 
I notified them of what had just happened, and a council of 
war was held, which, after a careful examination of the smaller 
arms we had upon our persons, resulted in a decision to move 
forward. We marched into the town, halted opposite the 
door of the only hotel in the place, and there our wagons stood 
while the other members of the party went into the hotel and 
ate their breakfasts, I remaining as the only sentinel to watch 
the movements of the crowd who gathered around, and to 
guard the guns. 

" ' I took my stand immediately in the rear of the larger wag- 
on, with my hand upon the box containing the six loaded guns; 
and whilst standing thus alone one of the crowd walked up to 
my side, and in rather an insolent tone asked, if " they had n't 
better take some of those guns? " to which I coolly but firmly 
responded, "There they are; take them." Whether it was the 
coolness of my response or the fear of danger that might be 
lurking near, I could not tell, but something induced him to 
turn away without offering any other remark. My comrades 
in a very short time came out, when, bidding the crowd good- 
morning, we quietly moved off, thankful that nothing had 
occurred to impede our progress.' 

" Nothing of interest occurred after this ?ill they reached 
Millersburg, in Bourbon County, about thirty-six miles from 
Maysville. Knowing that the sentiments of the people of this 
place were almost entirely Southern, they deemed it necessary 
to keep their forces in close order, watching with eager eyes 



The "Lincoln Guns" 107 

the crowd that appeared on the street, evidently brought to* 
gether by the news of their coining, which had preceded them. 

" The driver of the large wagon, whom they had suspected 
of being a Southern sympathizer, had been told, after leaving 
Mayslick, not to stop in any town. 'But in spite of our posi- 
tive orders,' says the General, 'he pretended to have some 
important business at Millersburg, stopped his team right in 
the centre of the town, dismounted, and ran immediately into 
some house. Not knowing what information he might com- 
municate to persons he came in contact with, and wishing 
to get as far on our journey as possible before nightfall, Dr. 
Burdett, one of our company, at once mounted the saddle- 
horse, drove the wagon through the town, leaving the driver 
to overtake us as best he could. Our order was again repeated 
to him, and his pledge was given that he would not stop again. 
As luck would have it, the only thing that occurred that had 
even the semblance of any hostile demonstration (and that 
was simply amusing and ridiculous, except for the effect that it 
might have had upon some of the crowd) was the act of an 
old lady who sat in a door on the street. Raising her 
clenched fist, she shook it at us with some degree of violence, 
and exclaimed at the top of her voice, " If I was a man I 
would not let them guns pass without taking them." ' 

"They expected to reach Paris, eight miles beyond Millers- 
burg, that night; but when they had gone not quite half the 
distance, a messenger, sent by the direction of Lieutenant 
Nelson, met them and informed them that a rebel company 
had been parading the streets of Paris that day creating con- 
siderable excitement among the citizens, and warned them 
that there was danger if they went into town that night, that 
an effort might be made by the rebel company to seize their 
guns. The result of this warning was a determination to go 
into camp for the night. They halted near the residence of 
Mrs. Hezekiah Martin, a widow lady of decided Union senti- 
ments, who kindly provided supper and breakfast for them, 
and furnished them with bedding to spread on the roadside 
near their wagons, where they deemed it best, for the safety of 
their guns, to sleep. 



io8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

" Early the next morning, they took up their h'ne of march. 
On entering Paris they found the streets perfectly quiet. On 
stepping for a moment into the grocery store of Mr. H. T. 
Brent, through whom the warning had been sent out the day 
before, General Fry saw a number of guns standing against 
the wall; and was told, in response to his inquiry what their 
presence meant, that they had been placed there that they 
might be ready for use by the Union men of the town in the 
event of any hostile demonstrations on the part of the rebels 
against him and his comrades in their passage through the 
place. 

" 'Here again,' says the General, 'just as we reached the 
centre and chief business part of the town, our rebel teamster 
halted his team, dismounted, rushed into a house, pretendedly 
to see some one on business. Being now fully convinced that 
his persistent disobedience of our positive orders was intended 
to involve us in some difficulty, we determined that his folly 
and perversity should not delay the progress of our march; so 
that as soon as he dismounted 1 mounted into the saddle and 
drove the team through the town and some distance beyond.' 

" They felt some apprehension in approaching Lexington; 
but they passed through the city without seeming to attract 
any special attention. They encamped that night four miles 
beyond Lexington, on the farm of a Mr. Dunn, who, though a 
rebel sympathizer, entertained them very hospitably at his 
house. 

" On reaching Nicholasville, the county-seat of Jessamine 
County, twelve miles beyond Lexington, the next day, they 
found a company of Home Guards ready to welcome them 
and relieve them of a portion of their guns. They were 
heartily congratulated on their success, and were then invited 
to a rich and bountiful repast. 

** Proceeding on their way, they were met at Mr, Richard 
Robinson's, where the road forks — one prong leading to Dan- 
ville and the other to Lancaster — by a part of the Home 
Guard company of Garrard County, who, after having received 
the portion of the guns designed for their county, bade the 
General and his comrades adieu, and with shouts of gladness 



The " Lincoln Guns " 109 

and triumph hastened away in the direction of Lancaster, to 
rejoice the hearts of the other members of their company. 

" With the remainder of their charge the General and his 
faithful companions turned to the right and proceeded on 
their way towards Danville. They reached there at a late 
hour in the night, when the people generally were wrapped in 
sleep. A few friends, however, were waiting and watching for 
their coming. With as little noise as possible the guns were 
removed from the wagons and deposited under lock and key 
in the house of one of the members of the Home Guard 
company. 

"No suspicion of the visit of General Fry, and the little 
band of men that had accompanied him, to Cincinnati, for the 
purpose of procuring guns, had reached the rebel part of the 
community, 'and it would be impossible,' says the General, 
'for any one to describe, in language sufficiently strong, the 
consternation expressed in the countenances of these people, 
when they beheld my company of a hundred men file down 
Main street, with bayonets glistening in the sunlight, pointed 
above their heads, and nodding to and fro as they " kept step 
to the music of the Union.' " 

" The companies from Mercer and Lincoln counties hastened 
to Danville as soon as they received information of the arrival 
of the guns at that place, and received their distributive share 
of the coveted prize. 

"The first issue of guns to Lieutenant Nelson being ex- 
hausted, on the fifth of June five thousand more guns were 
issued and the distribution went on. In proportion to the 
increase of Home Guards, with these arms in their hands, the 
courage and the hopes of the Unionists rose, and those of 
the disunionists fell. The disunionists, in a spirit of hatred and 
scorn, spoke of the guns as ' Lincoln guns.' The men who 
carried the guns on their shoulders accepted the title thus 
given to them with a smile of confidence which was full of 
meaning. These guns, notwithstanding all the hatred with 
which they and the bearers of them were regarded by the ene- 
mies of the government, had a wonderfully quieting effect in 
the communities into which they were introduced, and, doubt- 



no Union Cause in Kentucky 

less, were the means of preventing disturbances, and perhaps 
scenes of bloodshed. Under their influence, moreover, the 
Unionists began to hope for an early end of neutrality. 

" The President, fully aware of the difficulties under which 
the friends of the government in Kentucky labored, had 
avoided doing anything which might have the appearance of 
bringing any pressure to bear upon the State from without. 
Colonels Guthrie and Woodruff, Kentuckians, desirous of 
aiding the government, had gone across the Ohio River and 
opened a recruiting station in Ohio for such Kentuckians as 
wished to enlist in the service of the United States; and about 
the time of Lieutenant Nelson's first appearance in Kentucky 
for the purpose of distributing guns, Major Anderson, of Fort 
Sumter fame, himself a Kentuckian, was commissioned to 
open a recruiting office in Cincinnati for volunteers from Ken- 
tucky and West Virginia. Many Union men of the State were 
thus seeking service under the flag of the United States outside 
of the boundaries of the State. But, stimulated by the manifest 
purposes of the enemies of the government on one hand, and 
by the rising tide of Union sentiment in the North, and the 
presence of the 'Lincoln guns' in the hands of the Home 
Guards of the State on the other hand, the Unionists of Ken- 
tucky were becoming more and more outspoken in favor of 
placing the State in active co-operation with the loyal States 
of the North in the maintenance of the integrity of the Union. 

" From the time of the first important meeting in Frankfort, in 
May, prominent Union men of the State had been in frequent 
consultation with one another and with General Nelson in 
regard to the position of the State; and the thoughts and feel- 
ings of the Union people of Kentucky were, through them, 
gradually but surely giving direction to the policy of the State; 
and that policy was becoming less and less uncertain every day. 

•' Some of the men most prominent in these meetings were, 
in addition to those already mentioned, General Jerry T. 
Boyle, Hon. Joshua F. Bell, Hon. Tucker Woodson, and 
General John W. Finnell. Meetings were held in Louisville, 
Frankfort, Lexington, Jessamine County, and probably in 
other places. 



The ** Lincoln Guns " m 

"On the fifteenth of July General Nelson visited Lancaster, 
where he had a conference with several gentlemen who were 
known to be earnest, active friends of the government, in 
regard to the proposed enlistments. It was agreed that the 
most suitable place for the establishment of a camp for gath- 
ering recruits was Mr. Richard Robinson's farm, at the forks 
of the road leading from Lexington to Danville and Lancaster, 
and it was decided that that should be the place for the camp, 
and that the troops should begin to assemble there immediately 
after the August election. At this meeting in Lancaster, 
General Nelson commissioned William J. Landrum, Thomas 
E. Bramlette, Speed S. Fry, and T. T. Garrard as Colonels, 
and Frank Woolford as Lieutenant-Colonel, of volunteers in 
the service of the United States, Recruiting must have 
already begun in anticipation of the commissioning of these 
gentlemen, as General Nelson reported the next day from 
Cincinnati to the War Department that Kentucky recruits 
were then arriving at the place or places appointed for 
rendezvous, 

"On the twenty-first of July the battle of Bull Run was 
fought. On that day a meeting of leading Union men was 
held at Lexington with General Nelson. Among those present 
were the Hon, James Speed, Mr. Joshua F, Speed, Hon, Garret 
Davis, Hon, James Harlan, General Jerry T. Boyle, and Col- 
onel T. T. Garrard, When the news of the reverse to the 
Union forces arrived, the enemies of the government through- 
out the State became exultant and did not hesitate to make 
their feelings manifest in the most open and noisy way. On 
the return of Mr, James Speed and Mr. Joshua F. Speed to 
Louisville, they found the city wild with excitement. The 
feelings of the secessionists, which had been somewhat 
restrained by the presence in the city of the guns in the hands 
of the Home Guards, now broke out afresh in the display of 
secession flags and in shoutings for Jefferson Davis, Seces- 
sion flags were seen flying from buggies and carriages, as 
these vehicles were driven through the streets. 

" Hon. James Speed was the commander of the Home Guard 
of Louisville, and soon after his arrival from Lexington, he 



1 1 2 Union Cause in Kentucky 

received a message from Mr. John M. Delph, the Mayor, who 
was as true and brave as he was loyal, requesting him to come 
to the Mayor's office. Mr. Speed at once proceeded to the 
office, and after a short conference with the Mayor, sent for 
Captain George P. Jouett, who was Captain of Company A in 
the Home Guard, and ordered him to call his company together 
at once, to be held on guard during the night. He directed 
him to send to the Mayor's office a box of ammunition, and at 
the hour when the police were to meet for roll-call to send a 
file of men thither with an order for ammunition. This was 
done, and Mr. Speed, as commander of the Home Guard, 
opened the ammunition box and delivered the cartridges to 
the file of men in the presence of the police of the city, saying 
to the officer who received them that he must keep his men 
ready for service at a moment's warning. The scene made 
the impression desired. The news was spread by the police 
throughout the city that the Home Guard was prepared for 
any emergency, and the tumult soon subsided. 

" The election of members of the Legislature took place on 
the fifth of August. Recruiting under the Colonels who had 
been commissioned by General Nelson had, in the meantime, 
been going forward; and on the day after the election the 
recruits began to arrive at Richard Robinson's farm, the place 
which had been selected for a camp. Several prominent gen- 
tlemen, in addition to the officers themselves, were present. 
The camp was formally opened with public addresses, all 
breathing a spirit of devotion to the country. The news of 
the establishment of the camp soon became known throughout 
the State, and volunteers began to flock to ' Camp Dick Rob- 
inson ' not only from different parts of Kentucky, but also from 
East Tennessee. 

"Two days before the opening of the camp, Governor 
Harris of Tennessee had addressed a letter to Governor 
Magoffin of Kentucky, on the subject of the enlistments 
which were then going on, as contrary to the position of neu- 
trality which had been taken by the Legislature. The Gov- 
ernor visited the neighborhood of the camp, and on the twelfth 
of August responded to Governor Harris's letter. In his 



The ** Lincoln Guns " 113 

response, after having given the impressions he had received 
of the opinions of Union men with whom he had conversed in 
regard to the existence of the camp, he said, 'In a few days I 
hope to be able to inform your Excellency of the disbanding 
of the organizations to which you have been pleased to call 
my attention.* With the hope of accomplishing this object, 
the Governor, on the nineteenth of August, sent Mr. W. A. 
Dudley and Mr. F. K. Hunt as commissioners of the State of 
Kentucky, to urge the removal from the limits of Kentucky of 
the forces in camp within the State. 

'* In his letter to the President of the United States he said: 
'If such action as is hereby urged be promptly taken, I firmly 
believe the peace of the people of Kentucky will be preserved, 
and the horrors of a bloody war will be averted from a people 
now peaceful and tranquil.' 

" The gentlemen named at once proceeded to Washington, 
and had an interview with the President. On the following 
Monday, the 26th, the President handed them a letter to the 
Governor, written on the 24th, in which, after reviewing 
the facts and respectfully declining to remove the force from the 
State, he added: 'I most cordially sympathize with your Ex- 
cellency in the wish to preserve the peace of my own native 
State, Kentucky; but it is with regret I search, and cannot 
find, in your not very short letter, any declaration or intima- 
tion that you entertain any desire for the preservation of the 
Federal Union.' 

" While the Governor was trying to bring about the disband- 
ment of the volunteers at Camp Dick Robinson through the 
agency of commissioners sent to Washington, others had a 
mind to try to bring it about by intercepting the arms designed 
for the camp. Doctor Ethelbert L. Dudley, commander of 
the Home Guard of Lexington, was informed on Tuesday, 
August 20th, that guns for Camp Dick Robinson were on 
their way thither, and that they would reach Lexington that 
night.' Apprehending that there might be an effort to seize 
them, he sent Mr. H. K. Milward, afterwards Lieutenant- 
Colonel of the 1 8th Kentucky Infantry, to the camp to inform 
' See Justice Harlan's account, below. 



114 Union Cause in Kentucky 

General Nelson of the expected arrival of the guns, and of 
his fears of trouble with the rebels in regard to them. The dis- 
tance was about twenty-two miles. Accompanied by a young 
man, Mr. Milward arrived at the camp about three o'clock 
the next morning. Arousing General Nelson, at the risk of an 
explosion of that officer's well-known wrath, he delivered his 
message, and was surprised at the rapidity of the General's 
commands, and at the quickness which the Colonels displayed 
in answering his summons. The soldiers were equally speedy in 
obeying the commands of their Colonels. By the time Mr. Mil- 
ward's horse was fed and sufficiently rested to return, infantry 
and cavalry were ready to move. The detachment was under 
the command of Colonel Thomas E. Bramlette. The infantry 
proceeded as far as Nicholasville, a distance of ten miles; the 
cavalry went on to Lexington, arriving there sometime be- 
tween noon and one o'clock p.m. The day was rainy, and 
the men were not as yet provided with suitable army clothing. 
The ladies of Nicholasville, seeing this, had furnished them, 
in their passage through that place, with some sort of covering 
for their shoulders which, at the same time, covered the short 
guns which they carried. On reaching Lexington, the troops 
rode down Mulberry Street into Main. As they passed the 
Phoenix hotel, quite a number of persons were crowding the 
windows of that building, looking at them. Some one, either 
from one of the windows or from the sidewalk, made some 
remark intimating the inability of the cavalry to do much as 
soldiers, when one of the cavalrymen threw back his shoulder 
cover, displaying his gun, brought it to his shoulder, and 
pointed it toward the crowd. The action was quite sufficient 
to convince and scatter it. 

" The train bringing the guns designed for the camp had 
arrived just before day. A knowledge of the arrival of the 
guns was soon spread throughout the city. Threats were 
given out that the rebels, under the lead of Captain 
John H. Morgan's State Guard company, intended to cap- 
ture them. The blowing of a bugle from the roof of the 
company's, armory, on the northeast corner of Main and Upper 
streets, would be the signal for the members of the company 



The " Lincoln Guns " 115 

to rally for that purpose. The Home Guard were quietly 
notified that if the court-house bell rang they must repair to 
the railroad depot where the guns were. Shortly after the 
arrival of Colonel Bramlette and his men, a son of Mr. Henry 
Saxton went to the roof of the armory and blew his bugle loud 
and long. Immediately thereafter the court-house bell began 
to ring, and from all quarters the men began to rally — Captain 
Morgan's men to their armory where their guns were, and the 
Home Guards to the depot, with their guns on their shoulders. 
Mr. Hiram Shaw, a nephew of the gentleman of the same 
name to whose care the first 'Lincoln guns' sent to Lexington 
were consigned, has furnished me with an account of the 
occurrences of that day. He was a member of the Home 
Guard. He says: 'I deliberately locked my store, and went 
down there,' that is, to the depot. 'Altogether there as- 
sembled about one hundred and fifty to one hundred and sev- 
enty-iive Home Guards who, with Colonel Bramlette's men, 
made a force which was able to protect the guns and evidently 
meant to do so.' 

" ' It was a demonstration,' says Mr. Shaw, ' which gratified 
the friends and astonished the enemies of the government. 
Seeing it, and seeing the uselessness of the effort, and the 
trouble it would produce, Major M. C. Johnson and Hon. 
John C. Breckinridge, the former a Union man, went to the 
armory and persuaded the men assembled there not to attempt 
to take the guns.* Meanwhile, * the Union men remembered 
a piece of brass artillery which was kept near the city watch- 
house, and had been used for many years on all public occa- 
sions when salutes were in order. Although much nearer to the 
rebel armory than to the depot where they were assembled, the 
Home Guards sent a squad of men to bring it, which they did, 
and it was soon ready to be used if it should be necessary. 
No attack, however, was made. The guns were loaded into 
the several wagons necessary to convey them to Camp Dick 
Robinson; the Home Guards went with them to the city limits, 
and trusting them to the two hundred cavalry or rather 
mounted infantry, they returned to the city and were dismissed 
after their bloodless victory.' " 



ii6 Union Cause in Kentucky 

It will be observed that in the narrative of Dr. 
Stevenson he mentions the arrival of the guns by train 
at Lexington, and how the trouble apprehended was 
averted. It is very interesting to note in this connection 
the statement following, which was prepared by Justice 
John M. Harlan, as part of a narrative not designed for 
publication, but he has kindly allowed its use in this 
work. Justice Harlan says: 

" The situation in Kentucky was very peculiar and very seri- 
ous. It was particularly embarrassing to those who had no 
sympathy with the rebellion and were opposed to a dissolution 
of the Union in any event. The people of the State had been 
educated to love the Union and the Constitution, and did not 
think that any errors or wrongs in the administration of the 
government justified a resort to arms for the disruption of the 
Union, But the business interests of the State were closely 
identified with those of the Southern States, and its people 
were allied by marriage and otherwise with the people of the 
States in rebellion. There was a line of division running 
through the whole State, the majority of the people, however, 
being unquestionably favorable to the Union cause. The 
difificulties under which the Union people labored were in- 
creased by the fact that the then Governor of Kentucky, 
Beriah Magoffin, was in open sympathy with the rebels, as 
were most of the officers of the State Guard, then, or shortly 
thereafter, under the command of S. B. Buckner, who later 
on joined the rebel forces in the field. One of the principal 
officers of the State Guard was, however, true to his country, 
viz: General Thomas L. Crittenden, a son of Senator John J, 
Crittenden. 

" In the spring or early summer of 1861, there was a called 
session of the Kentucky Legislature, at which the rebel sym- 
pathizers attempted to pass a legislative enactment for what 
was then styled a * Sovereignty ' State convention, to be com- 
posed of delegates regularly elected and empowered with 
authority to consider the general situation and to determine 
the attitude and course of Kentucky in the crisis then pending. 



The " Lincoln Guns " 117 

The rebels believed that they could elect a majority of the 
delegates to such a convention, and they hoped to have that 
body formally declare either that Kentucky, as a State, would 
ally itself directly with the States which had assumed to 
secede from the Union, or be neutral throughout the contest 
between the Union government and the Confederates. It was 
hoped that in this way Kentucky would, under the form of 
law, assist the movement for a dissolution of the Union. 

"At that time my father resided at Frankfort, the capital of 
the State. I had, in February, 1861, removed to Louisville 
and formed a partnership in the practice of the law with Hon. 
W. F. Bullock. In obedience to a summons from my father, I 
went from Louisville to Frankfort and remained there some 
weeks. With him and others I labored constantly for weeks 
with members of the Kentucky Legislature for the purpose of 
defeating the scheme for calling a * Sovereignty ' convention — 
believing that the defeat of that scheme would result in hold- 
ing the State in the Union and depriving those intending to 
assist the rebels of the pretext that in their so doing they 
would obey the command of the State. Well, we beat the 
' Sovereignty ' convention conspiracy, and Ifeturned to Louis- 
ville and resumed the work of supporting the Union cause. 

*' During the summer of 1861 nothing was talked of in Ken- 
tucky except union and disunion. The courts were virtually 
closed and there was but little business in my profession. 
We determined to defer decisive action until the Union men 
of the State obtained arms, and in the meantime educate the 
people as to the value of the Union, and as to the horrors 
and dangers of a civil war, should Kentucky ally itself with 
the rebel forces. Meetings were arranged for the street cor- 
ners in Louisville. A band of music was employed to bring 
the people together. The speaker usually stood on a box 
obtained from some storehouse near by. It is safe to say that 
during the summer of 1861 I made at least fifty ' store-box' 
speeches for the Union cause. The thing we had in mind was 
to stay the tide then apparently setting towards the rebel 
cause, and to hold the people in line until the friends of the 
government in Kentucky could strike effectively for the 



ii8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Union. In this work many persons were engaged, among 
the number James Speed, afterwards Attorney-General under 
Lincoln; his brother, Joshua F. Speed, an early and trusted 
friend of Lincoln while he (Speed) lived in Illinois; Caleb 
W. Logan, Chancellor of the Louisville Chancery Court; 
George P. Jouett (a brother of Admiral Jouett), afterwards 
Lieutenant-Colonel of the 15th Kentucky Infantry and killed 
at the battle of Perryville; Hamilton Pope; John W. Barr, 
afterwards United States District Judge at Louisville; John 
K. Goodloe; and Mayor John M. Delph. Among those who 
co-operated with us in Louisville, each in his own way, was 
Rev. Dr. Edward P. Humphrey, the father of Judge A. P. 
Humphrey of Louisville. The leaders of the Union cause in 
Central Kentucky were Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, my 
father, James Harlan, Joshua F. Bell, and Thomas E. Bram- 
lette. In the front pf the fight to hold Kentucky fast to the 
Union was also John H. Harney, the veteran editor of the 
Louisville Democrat. 

" Mr. Lincoln had it greatly at heart that the State in which 
he was born should adhere to the Union. As already indicated, 
the judgment of the leading Union men of Kentucky was that 
they should move slowly and not have the State involved in 
actual war until the Union people were armed and in a position 
to defend themselves and be of real service to the good cause. 
President Lincoln respected their wishes, and therefore the 
rebels had no opportunity to say that Lincoln was attempting 
to coerce Kentucky by quartering Federal troops within its 
limits. The Southern Confederacy pursued the same policy 
and kept its troops out of Kentucky so as not to appear to be 
dragooning our people into the support of the rebel cause. 
From this condition of things arose the charge, on both sides, 
that Kentucky was neutral in the great contest then pending 
— a position which, under ordinary circumstances, Kentuck- 
ians would not have been willing to occupy. But the Union 
men of Kentucky were content to rest for a time under that 
charge, knowing that they were unarmed while the rebel sym- 
pathizers were armed, and that to enter the conflict before 
they were ' full ready ' was to invite disaster to the Union cause 



The " Lincoln Guns " 119 

in the State. That the State was favorable to the Union, 
although on the surface it was ' neutral, ' was shown by the 
special Congressional election at that time — the Union men 
carrying, I think, every Congressional district. By Union 
men I mean those who, while differing from their brethren in 
the Northern States as to some aspects of the war, yet openly 
avowed their purpose to stand by the country at all hazards. 
They advocated the employment of all the men and money 
necessary to maintain the authority of the General government 
over every foot of American soil. 

" Shortly after the conflict of arms commenced, large num- 
bers of loyal men from East Tennessee fled from that State 
and established themselves at Camp Dick Robinson, on the 
Kentucky River, not far from Lexington, Kentucky. They 
were secretly supplied with arms by some arrangement with 
the government. To that camp many loyal men from the 
mountains of Kentucky flocked. 

" Just then there appeared on the scene of action a very 
remarkable man — William Nelson, a Kentuckian by birth, 
and an officer (captain, I think, in the navy). He had been 
in Washington and had personally conferred with Lincoln. 
He had expressed a strong desire to go to the assistance of 
the Union men of his native State. Lincoln determined to 
meet his wishes and authorized him (though not publicly) to 
send arms to Camp Dick Robinson, the men there being 
insufficiently provided for in that way. I knew of Nelson's 
plans from reading his letters to my father, who was at that 
time, or shortly afterwards became. United States District 
Attorney at Louisville, having accepted that position at the 
urgent request of Mr. Lincoln. 

" Nelson came to Cincinnati and shipped from that city, 
over the Kentucky Central Railroad to Lexington, thence to be 
conveyed to Camp Dick Robinson, by wagon, several boxes of 
guns for the use of the men voluntarily assembled at that 
camp. In some way the rebel sympathizers at Cynthania ob- 
tained information as to these guns being on the railroad 
train, and when the train got in sight of Cynthania, Harrison 
County, the conductor saw a large crowd at the depot, appar- 



I20 Union Cause in Kentucky 

ently under the control of Captain Joe Desha. Correctly 
supposing that they intended to seize the guns and prevent 
them from reaching Camp Dick Robinson, he immediately 
ordered the train to be stopped, and returned with the train 
and the guns to Cincinnati, or rather to Covington, I com- 
municated the facts to Joshua F. Bullitt, then a Judge of the 
Court of Appeals and at that time an earnest opponent of the 
rebel cause, although at a later date he became an opponent 
of the war, because of the course of the administration of 
Lincoln on the subject of slavery. The result of the confer- 
ence with Bullitt was that I requested Nelson to ship the guns 
by boat from Cincinnati to Louisville on a named night, 
marked to my address at Louisville, Kentucky. I wrote to 
Dr. Ethelbert L. Dudley, the leading physician at Lexington 
and the captain of a company of Union Home Guards, telling 
him of what we proposed to do with the guns, I informed 
him that the guns would leave Louisville before daylight on a 
certain day and would reach Lexington precisely at a named 
hour. We were enabled to be thus specific as to time, be- 
cause the Superintendent of the railroad from Louisville to 
Lexington — Colonel Sam Gill — was a Union man and cheer- 
fully co-operated with us. I should say that there were two 
companies of volunteers at Lexington, composed of the first 
young men, socially, in the city — one commanded by Dr. Dud- 
ley, the other by John H. Morgan, who subsequently joined 
the Confederate military forces and became a noted cavalry 
officer on that side. 

" The guns were shipped from Cincinnati to Louisville on 
the regular boat, which arrived at the Louisville wharf about 
two or three o'clock in the morning. I was at the wharf to 
receive them. Bullitt was with me. We had them put on drays 
previously provided, and carried them across the city to the 
depot of the Louisville and Lexington Railroad on Jefferson 
Street — Bullitt and myself walking in the street by the side of 
the drays, each being well armed to resist any attempt to take 
the guns. The train carrying the guns left Louisville on time 
and arrived at Lexington exactly at the hour fixeJ. In some 
way the Confederate company ascertained what 'was up,' so 



The '' Lincoln Guns" 121 

that as soon as the train carrying the guns reached the depot, 
an alarm bell was sounded for the assembling of Morgan's 
men at their armory. Immediately another alarm was sounded 
for the assembling of Dudley's men at their armory. The 
young men of each company responded promptly, met at their 
respective armories, and marched quickly to the depot, taking 
different routes. The two companies reached the depot at the 
same moment, and an immediate conflict was imminent. Just 
then, in the nick of time, four hundred cavalrymen, armed 
with Henry rifles, appeared on the hill just above the depot 
building. They were comanded by Colonel Bramlette (after- 
wards Governor of Kentucky), and were from Camp Dick 
Robinson. John C. Breckinridge, who had not then 'gone 
South,' appeared at this moment on the scene and pleaded 
for peace. He succeeded. No gun was fired. The men 
from Camp Dick Robinson took possession of the guns and 
carried them away with them. If a single shot had been fired, 
the loss of life would have been great, for the two Lexington 
companies were composed of men used to the handling of guns 
and full of fight. 

"It may be thought strange that the men from Camp Dick 
Robinson appeared just at the precise moment they were 
needed. The explanation is that in my note to Dr. Dudley, 
above referred to, he was asked to send a messenger at once 
to Camp Dick Robinson, and request that the cavalry be at 
the depot at a particular hour and receive the guns. My let- 
ter reached Lexington by the evening mail of the night before 
the train carrying the guns reached that city, and after Dr. 
Dudley had retired for the night. He had been on horseback 
all day visiting patients in the country and was quite exhausted 
by his labors. Mrs. Dudley concluded not to disturb him, 
but having read my letter, she went quietly to the room of her 
son, who was a boy of about seventeen, and informed him 
that he must take a horse and go at once with my letter to 
Camp Dick Robinson. The gallant boy said he would go, or 
die in the effort to reach the camp. He made himself ready 
for the journey and travelled nearly all the night, reaching the 
camp in time to bring the cavalry to Lexington." ' 
* See Appendix, § ii, p. 345. 



CHAPTER IX 

ABANDONMENT OF NEUTRALITY 

LOOKING back upon the course of events in the 
early part of 1861, and seeing how rapidly the 
storm-cloud of war came over the country, it is now plain 
that Kentucky's attitude of neutrality was necessarily 
temporary. It is still believed by many that it saved 
Kentucky to the Union, and that only in this way would 
it have been saved, but this is more than doubtful. The 
temper of the Kentucky people was displayed in so many 
ways against disunion, and in favor of the Union, it is 
reasonably certain that if the leaders had taken ground 
from the start square against the South, and for the 
Union, the people would have been with them. This is 
proved by their voting. It is also shown by the 
character of resolutions adopted in various parts of the 
State. On May 15th a large meeting was held in Garrard 
County, at which it was resolved: 

" That we regard the doctrine of secession as illegal, 
unconstitutional, and impolitic — subversive of all legal 
restraints and constitutional obligation — destructive of all 
permanent government, and tending only to political 
chaos and anarchy." {^Louisville Journal, May 7th.) 

On May 31st, at a large meeting in Casey County, it 
was resolved : 

" That it is the duty of the people of Kentucky to adhere 
to the Union and frankly resent any effort to change the rela- 
tions of Kentucky to the Federal government. 

" That it is the duty of our Representative In Congress to 



Abandonment of Neutrality 123 

support the government of the United States in all legal and 
Constitutional measures the adoption of which may be neces- 
sary to defeat the revolutionists of the rebellious States." 

At this meeting, Hon. Aaron Harding was nominated 
for Congress. {^Louisville Journal, June 7th.) 

Like resolutions vi^ere reported from many other 
counties. The people were really in advance of their 
leaders, and this was not unnatural. The leaders felt the 
weight of responsibility, which made them more or less 
conservative, but the people became restive under the 
situation in which they saw they were placed. There 
was a growing feeling that they were unprotected. 
Through all the discussion of neutrality it was known 
that Kentucky had few arms or munitions of war, and 
that all talk about repelling invaders was idle bravado. 
Kentucky was situated in the heart of the country, sur- 
rounded by other States, and could get nothing except 
by its being brought through them. The lofty language of 
Governor Magoffin's proclamation, "Warning all States, 
whether separate or united, and especially the United 
States and the Confederate States" not to come on 
Kentucky soil, was only calculated to cause people to 
wonder and smile, who knew that the State was in no 
condition to assert such independence. 

It was a wholly different proposition to undertake 
mediation. The State might wisely enough, in the 
beginning, when there was still hope of preventing war, 
refrain from taking sides for the express purpose of 
peace. There was both wisdom and patriotism in the 
speech of Hon. James Guthrie, at Louisville, April 20th, 
in which he said : 

"I want Kentucky to take her stand for peace. Let 
us stand fearlessly and cry peace ; hold fast to that which 
is good, and let those who want to make the experiment 
of secession go as individuals." 

There was nothing but consistent good faith from the 



124 Union Cause in Kentucky 

first, in standing out resolutely against secession, and it 
was reasonably supposed at the time it might moderate 
the excitement in the South, 

But when the idea of neutrality reached the point 
of independence of both the United States and the 
Confederate States, it practically led to a position that 
would take the State out of the Union, though not into 
the Confederacy. The very absurdity of the idea led to 
the practical abandonment of neutrality, although the 
name was kept up through the summer months of 1861. 

It is necessary at this point to consider the status of 
the "State Guard," as it was called. On the 5th of 
March, i860, the Legislature had enacted a law for the 
better organization of the State militia. It provided that 
the Kentucky militia should be divided into three classes, 

1. The Active Militia, 

2. The Enrolled Militia, 

3. The Reserve Militia. 

Only the first two classes require notice, as the Reserve 
was to consist of persons over and below the ordinary 
military age. 

The Active Militia consisted of volunteers who made up 
companies, and became regularly organized. These were 
known as the State Guard. 

The Enrolled Militia were those who were of the 
military age, but unorganized. 

The organization of the Active Militia was promptly 
entered upon. Many volunteer companies were made 
up, and as the machinery of the State government was 
in the hands of men who had the same politics as the 
Governor, it was natural that the companies were of the 
same political complexion, as a general thing. These 
companies constituted what was called in the Act, the 
Kentucky State Guard. The Act provided that the 
State Guard should be a single corps composed of 
divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies. 



Abandonment of Neutrality 125 

Provision was made for arming and equipping the State 
Guard, and general officers were provided. So prompt 
was the organization under this law that in January, 1861, 
the report of the Adjutant-General of the State showed 
there were forty-five companies fully armed, uniformed^ 
and equipped. General Simon Bolivar Buckner was the 
Inspector-General and Commander. In less than three 
months the number was almost doubled. 

In this organization, therefore, there were in the neigh- 
borhood of six thousand equipped soldiers, and, generally 
speaking, with Southern tendencies. One of the irrita- 
tions of that time was that difficulties were found in the 
way of organizing companies which would be made up of 
Union men, while no difficulty was experienced on the 
other side. The whole of the State Guard, however, 
was not secession in sentiment. It will be seen that 
some of the companies became the nuclei of Union 
regiments a little later. 

General Simon Bolivar Buckner, a graduate of West 
Point and an officer of the Mexican war, was made 
Inspector-General with the rank of Major-General, and 
was the Commander of the State Guard. General 
Thomas L. Crittenden, son of Hon. John J. Crittenden, 
a graduate of West Point and an officer of the Mexican 
war, was made Brigadier-General, and Lloyd Tilghman 
and Roger W. Hanson were Colonels. 

In the break-up which occurred upon the abandonment 
of neutrality. General Buckner went South and rose to 
the rank of Lieutenant-General in the Confederate 
service. General Crittenden adhered to the Union and 
served with distinguished ability throughout the war. 
Lloyd Tilghman was not a Kentuckian. He went South 
and became a Brigadier-General. Roger Hanson became 
Colonel of a Confederate regiment from Kentucky and 
was killed at Stone River. 

The two chief officers of the State Guard were types 



126 Union Cause in Kentucky 

of the martial spirit of Kentucky. It would be equally 
wrong to charge either with bad faith. Each one acted 
from conviction of his duty at the time, and each one was 
faithful to the cause he espoused. When the struggle 
ended General Crittenden continued in the military 
service with high rank in the regular army, until the 
close of his life, and General Buckner, who is still living, 
has continuously exerted a wholesome patriotic influence 
as a leading citizen of his State. 

The attitude of the State Guard was a cause of grave 
apprehension to the Kentucky Unionists. It being an 
armed force and controlled generally by those who were in 
sympathy with the South, a strong desire naturally grew 
up for the organization and arming of a force that would 
support the Union cause. That which was natural took 
place. The Unionists sought to get arms where they 
could, and this led to the introduction into the State of 
the "Lincoln guns," as they were called. 

On the part of some persons, this was regarded as in 
violation of neutrality, but it will be seen that graver acts 
than these occurred, both before this date and after, 
which showed little regard for the neutral position of the 
State, on the part of the secessionists. 

It is noted in Collins's Kentucky (vol. i., p. 88): 
"April 20th, Captain Joe Desha, with a company of over 
lOO men, leaves Harrison County for the Confederacy. 
Other companies leave from other parts of the State." 
Again it is noted, p. 90, "May 15th, a regiment of troops 
from Kentucky, under Colonel Blanton Duncan, now at 
Harper's Ferry, Va. , in the Confederate army." 

It has been seen that the neutrality idea was formally 
introduced in the Kentucky Legislature on the 29th of 
January. Before that, and afterward, it was the stand 
of Kentucky, not by reason of legislative adoption, but 
simply as a general popular sentiment, and excepting the 
proviso in the Act of May 24th, that the arms to be 



Abandonment of Neutrality 127 

procured were not to be used either against the United 
States or the Confederate States, Kentucky neutrality 
was not based on any Act of the Legislature. 

But the idea and plan of neutrality existed as plainly 
as early as January 29th as it ever did afterward. There- 
fore, if there could be violation of neutrality in May by 
the introduction of the "Lincoln guns," or at any later 
date, it was equally susceptible of violation in April. The 
events of April, therefore, are rich in interest, as they 
show how the disunionists were then acting, and at what 
disadvantages the Unionists were placed. 

The fact that in April, 1861, troops were raised in 
Kentucky, and left the State organized and equipped, and 
with colors flying, led to the strong language used in a 
speech in the Kentucky Senate, on the 21st of May, by 
Hon. (afterwards General) Lovell H. Rousseau. He said : 

" The neutrality that fights all on one side, I do not under- 
stand. Troops leave Kentucky in broad daylight, and our 
Governor sees them going to fight against our own govern- 
ment, yet nothing is said or done to prevent them. Is this to 
be our neutrality? If it is, I am utterly opposed to it. If we 
assume a neutral position, let us be neutral in fact." 

It must be remembered that it was in April that 
Fort Sumter was fired on, and immediately after came 
President Lincoln's call for troops, to which Governor 
Magofifin replied : 

"I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops 
for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern 
States." 

At the same time a call went to him from the President 
of the Confederacy. The answer to this, whatever it 
was, appears to have been sent by a private messenger, 
and was perhaps an oral message.' 

Concerning this answer and the events which occurred 

' See Appendix, § 12, p. 346. 



128 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

just at that time, the following dispatches found in the 
records show the entire disregard of Kentucky neutrality, 
both at home and at the Southern capital : 

" Montgomery, April 23, 1861. 
"Governor Magoffin, 
" Frankfort, Ky. 

** If you received my dispatch of yesterday, requesting you 
to furnish a regiment, I shall be obliged to know your answer. 

" L. P. Walker." 
{War Records, Serial No. 127, p. 234.) 

No answer to this by Governor Magoffin is found, but 
there is a letter written by Blanton Duncan to Hon. L. P. 
Walker, Secretary of War, in which he says the dispatch 
was received by Governor Magoffin in his presence, and 
as the Governor *' could not respond from motives of 
policy, I have done so individually." 

The letter says : 

" I immediately sent orders to my companies to move and 
they have done so, hurriedly and without their ranks full. 
Captain Jo Desha, Captain J. D. Pope, Captain J. B. Harvey, 
and Captain Lapille left for Nashville this afternoon with 
about 300 men." 

The letter goes on to say, "The Confederate flag has 
floated gayly to the breeze as my men this evening marched 
through our streets, thousands applauding and waving 
them on." {War Records, Serial No. 108, p. 37.) 

Blanton Duncan, on the i6th day of April, published a 
statement in the Louisville Jourtial, saying: 

"As is well known throughout the State, I have been en- 
gaged for some weeks past organizing a regiment to be ready 
to assist the Southern States whenever invaded by Northern 
forces. The regiment is organized and will soon be called 
for, as will be seen from the following dispatch to me from 
Montgomery before hostilities commenced." 



Abandonment of Neutrality 1 29 

Then follows the dispatch : 

•' Confederate States of America, War Department, 
"Montgomery, April 9, 1861. 
"Sir: Although the department is not even yet ready to 
accept your regiment, the Secretary of War instructs me to 
say to you that the aspect of affairs is such as to warrant the 
confident belief that in a very short time its service will be 
very acceptable to the South. He therefore trusts that you 
will hold the regiment prepared to move instantly on the call 
of this department. 

" Respectfully, 

" Your obedient servant, 

"J. H. Hooper, 
" Private Secretary. " 

As early as April 13, 1861. the Confederacy mani- 
fested its attitude toward Kentucky, and many Ken- 
tuckians manifested their willingness to serve the 
Confederacy, all regardless of the neutral stand the peo- 
ple of the State had taken. 

As evidence of this, the following letter appears : 

•• Adjutant and Inspector-General's Offick, 
"Montgomery, April 13, 1861. 
" Captain Thomas H. Taylor, 

" Regiment of Cavalry, Montgomery, Ala. 
"Sir: 

"You will proceed to Louisville, Ky., via Memphis and 
Nashville, Tenn., and make examination for the establishment 
of recruiting rendezvous in each of those cities. You will do 
the same in respect to Frankfort, Lexington, Covington, or 
Newport, Ky., and such other places contiguous thereto as in 
your judgment may offer facilities for recruiting. You will 
report the result of your examination to this office. I am 
awaiting instructions for opening rendezvous. 

"S. Cooper, 
"Adjutant and Inspector- General." 
(War Records^ Serial No. no, p. 44.) 

The following letter is in the same volume: 



130 Union Cause in Kentucky 

"Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, 
" Montgomery, April 23, 1861. 

" First Lieutenant George B. Cosby, 

" Frankfort, Ky, 
"Sir: 

*'As soon as you shall have carried out the instructions of 
the Governor of Kentucky, or are able to conform to these 
instructions, you will report in person or by letter to Captain 
Thomas H. Taylor of the Army, who has been assigned to the 
duty of procuring men to be enlisted in the Army of the Con- 
federate States, and from him you will receive orders and be 
governed accordingly. Captain Taylor will also supply you 
with funds. His address will be Frankfort, Ky., or you may 
hear of his being elsewhere. 

*' Very respectfully, 

*' Your obedient servant, 

" S. Cooper, 
** Adjutant and Inspector-General." 
{lb., p. 65.) 

In the same volume, page 68, is a letter from St. George 
Croghan to Hon. L. P. Walker, Confederate Secretary of 
War. It was written from the Gait House, Louisville, 
Ky., April 24, 1861. It states that on his arrival at 
Louisville he found no difficulty in obtaining men for 
enlistment. "I had," says he, "an interview with Gov- 
ernor Magoffin last night, and he gave me full permission 
to enlist as many men as I desired, although he has, in 
the last three days, discountenanced men leaving the 
State, owing to the anticipated necessity for their im- 
mediate service at home." 

This letter was endorsed "Referred to Adjutant- 
General suggestively. L. P. WALKER." 

It was again endorsed as follows : 

" Adjutant and Inspector-General's Office, 
"April 30, 1S61. 
" Two officers (Lieutenant Hood and Lieutenant Bullock), 
both of Kentucky, have been assigned to recruiting duties at 



Abandonment of Neutrality 131 

Louisville under the superintendence of Captain T. H. Tay- 
lor, appointed from that State. It is believed this arrangement 
will sufifice for the purpose suggested in this letter. 

" S. Cooper, 
" Adjutant and Inspector-General." 

In the same volume, page 43, is the following letter 
dated Louisville, April 12, 1861 : 

"Hon. L. p. Walker. 
" Dear Sir: 

*' Yours of the 9th by Mr, Hooper is at hand. I will write 
immediately to the Captains of different companies to be in 
readiness, and I doubt not we will be able to rendezvous here 
in a very few days, if ordered to do so. The companies are in 
different counties, some at considerable distance, but can 
easily be concentrated upon a given point in three days. It 
has been my intention to take them by boat to Memphis, which 
can be done at small cost, and from thence they can go to any 
designated point by railroad. . . . 

" Blanton Duncan." 

In the same volume, page 46, is another letter from 
the same writer to L. P. Walker, in which he says : 

"My regiment will rendezvous here on Tuesday 
waiting orders from you, and all are eager to be ordered 
South at once." 

In the same volume, page 53, is the following letter: 

" New Orleans, April 17, 1861. 
" L. P. Walker, 

" I tender the Confederate government a regiment of 
Kentucky Volunteers, Blanton Duncan, Lieutenant-Colonel 
Commanding. At what point and when shall they be mustered 
into service ? . . . 

"Thos. O. Moore, 
" Governor of Louisiana." 

This was answered, same page : 



132 Union Cause in Kentucky 

" Montgomery. April 17, i86i. 
" Governor Thos. O. Moore, 
"Baton Rouge, La. 
" The Kentucky regiment will be received if you tender 
them as part of the reserve which Louisiana has been asked 

to hold organized. 

" L. P. Walker." 

In the same volume, page 56, is a letter to L. P. 
Walker, dated April 19, 1861, advising him that Blanton 
Duncan "expects to send about 1500 men to the Governor 
of Louisiana next week. " 

April 26, 1 86 1, William Preston Johnston virrote to the 
Confederate Secretary of War from Louisville, mention- 
ing the resignation of his father, General Albert Sidney 
Johnston, from the United States army. He says: 

"I saw Governor Magoffin to-day, and he told me of 
his reply communicated to you by messenger. He is 
satisfied that any precipitate action on the part of our 
friends will react and damage us." 

He also says: 

"Our military organizations are being perfected, but we are 
badly armed, and I regret to say that other companies are 
being enrolled hostile to the South, and I fear equipped with 
Federal gold. The Governor, however, is trying to entrust 
our State arms only with the loyal men. The sentiment of the 
Southern States Rights men is opposed to taking action until 
Kentucky is armed and organized." {^War Records, Serial 
No. no, p. 71.) 

The United States authorities did not establish recruit- 
ing stations in Kentucky as early as April, 1861, nor did 
any Federal troops march out of Kentucky with colors 
gayly floating to the breeze, amidst the plaudits of 
Kentucky Unionists. And yet Kentucky was in the 
Union, never went out of it, and her people were over- 
whelmingly loyal to the Union. 

If such things had hanpen^d, we may be sure a great 



Abandonment of Neutrality 133 

cry would have gone up from the Governor and all who 
were in sympathy with the Confederacy, that neutrality 
was violated. 

Whatever may be said about the episode of the 
"Lincoln guns," it must be remembered that their 
introduction was antedated by the conduct of the Con- 
federate authorities at the Southern capital, and by their 
confederates in Kentucky, as shown in the dispatches 
quoted. 

At a later date President Lincoln undertook to give 
much-needed aid to the Kentucky Unionists, by authoriz- 
ing General William Nelson to establish a camp in 
Kentucky. This authority was given in July, but 
nothing appears to have been done untilafter the August 
election, which occurred August 5th. At that election 
the Union cause was so overwhelmingly triumphant, and 
the urgency of the Kentucky Unionists to organize was 
so great, that General Nelson established the camp, which 
soon became celebrated, known as Camp Dick Robinson. 
This called for a protest from Governor Magoffin. There 
was nothing to be done about companies being recruited 
in the State for the Confederacy. There was nothing 
but comfort in the fact that the State Guard was 
organized, armed, and equipped, and, as said by the 
historian, Z. F. Smith, was "in sympathy with the cause 
of the South." The Home Guards had no arms, or, at 
least, but few. In addition to these facts it may be 
noted that all along the border of Tennessee, in some 
places up to, and even over, the State line, and in all the 
mountain passes, including Cumberland Gap, were 
organized Confederate troops." Besides this, there were 
recruiting camps actually established in the State, one 
near Elizabethtown, and one near Glasgow, and one in 
Owen County within thirty miles of Frankfort. Yet when 
the Union men of Kentucky cast their magnificent vote 
■ See Appendix, § 12, p. 347. 



134 Union Cause in Kentucky 

of August 5th, and then began to organize themselves 
for self-protection against reasonably apprehended in- 
vasion and violence, the protest came from the Gov- 
ernor. He addressed his letter to President Lincoln, 
requesting the removal, disbanding, and breaking up of 
the camp at Dick Robinson. He also duly advised 
President Davis of what he had done. In his letter to 
the President of the Confederacy he said : 

" Since the commencement of the present unhappy difficul- 
ties yet pending in the country, the people of Kentucky had 
indicated a steadfast purpose to maintain a position of strict 
neutrality between the belligerent parties. . . . Recently 
a military force has been enlisted and quartered by the United 
States authorities in this State. I have on this day addressed 
a communication and dispatched commissioners to the Presi- 
dent of the United States, urging the removal of these troops." 

He adds: 

"Although I have no reason to presume that the government 
of the Confederate States contemplate or have even purposed 
any violation of the neutral attitude thus assumed by Kentucky, 
there seems to be some uneasiness felt among the people of 
some portions of the State, occasioned by the collection of 
bodies of troops along the southern frontier. " ( War Records, 
Series i, vol. 4, p. 378.) 

On the 28th of August Mr. Davis replied to the effect 
that the troops along the frontier " had no other ob- 
ject than to repel the lawless invasion of that State 
[Tennessee] by the forces of the United States." He 
adds that the Confederacy will respect Kentucky's 
neutrality "as long as her people will maintain it them- 
selves. But neutrality, to be entitled to respect, must 
be strictly maintained by both parties" {lb., 396). 

President Lincoln sent the following reply to Governor 
MagofBn's letter to him: 

" I may not possess full and precisely accurate knowledge 



Abandonment of Neutrality 135 

upon this subject, but I believe it is true that there is a mili- 
tary camp within Kentucky, acting by authority of the United 
States, which force is not very large and which is not now 
being augmented. I also believe that some arms have been 
furnished to this force by the United States. I also believe 
that this force consists exclusively of Kentuckians having their 
camp in the immediate vicinity of their own homes, and not 
assaulting or menacing any of the good people of Kentucky. 

" In all I have done in the premises I have acted upon the 
urgent solicitation of what I believed and still believe to be 
the wish of a majority of all the Union-loving people of 
Kentucky. 

" While I have conversed on this subject with many eminent 
men of Kentucky, including a large majority of her members 
of Congress, I do not remember that any one of them, or any 
other person except Your Excellency, and the bearers of Your 
Excellency's letter, has urged me to remove the military force 
from Kentucky or to disband it. 

" One other very worthy citizen of Kentucky did solicit me 
to have the augmenting of the force suspended for a time. 

" Taking all the means within my reach to form a judgment, 
I do not believe it is the popular wish of Kentucky that this 
force shall be removed beyond her limits, and with this im- 
pression, I must respectfully decline to remove it. 

I most cordially sympathize with Your Excellency in the 
wish to preserve the peace of my own native State, Kentucky. 
It is with regret that I search and cannot find in your not very 
short letter, any declaration or intimation that you entertain 
any desire for the preservation of the Federal Union." 

Shaler, who does not always resolve mooted points in 
favor of the Union side, says : 

"It is claimed by many Confederate sympathizers that the 
violation of the State's neutrality came first from the Federal 
authorities. They cite the recruiting at Camp Dick Robinson 
as evidence in proof of their assertion. It is hardly worth 
while to debate this question of precedence when the action 
of both sides was so nearly simultaneous, and only accom- 



io^ Union Cause in Kentucky 

plished the inevitable overthrow of the neutrality of the Com- 
monwealth. Still, after a careful review of all the records, 
the writer has been driven to the conclusion that the actual 
infringement of the neutrality proclamation was due to the 
action of Polk and Zollicoffer, and that the simultaneous 
invasion of the State at points some hundreds of miles apart 
shows that the rupture of Kentucky neutrality was deliberately 
planned by the Confederate authorities." (P. 251.) 

Shaler takes no note of the action of the Confederate 
authorities toward Kentucky as disclosed by the corres- 
pondence here quoted, in the month of April. It is true 
the neutrality proclamation was not issued until May 20th, 
but that did not strengthen or affect in any way the 
neutrality stand. It was only the personal act of the 
Governor done at the request, as he says, of good 
citizens, and also done to protect his own personal good 
name. Such neutrality as then was in Kentucky was 
purely a popular stand. It began in January, 1861, and 
was crystallized in the resolution offered by R. T. Jacob 
in the Lower House of the Legislature, January 29th, 
but neither that resolution nor any other, mentioning 
neutrality by name, was ever adopted by the Legislature. 

Therefore, neutrality was as well violated in April as 
in July or August, and if the invasion by General Polk, 
September 3d, was not the first actual violation, then the 
first can only be found by going back to the events and 
correspondence of the month of April. 

The entrance of Polk, September 3d, 1861, produced 
deep and intense feeling. That movement was certainly 
in violation of all thoughts of neutrality. The Legislature 
which was in session passed resolutions that the invaders 
must be expelled, and that the Governor call out the 
military force of the State therefor, to be placed under 
command of General Thomas L. Crittenden. These 
were vetoed by the Governor, but passed over the veto, 
and the proclamation was issued. 



Abandonment of Neutrality 137 

At this crisis the adherents of each side began rapidly 
to take position. Here will be noted a feature of the 
movement, and of the accounts given of it. It will 
appear in another chapter that an instantaneous rally of 
the Unionists of Kentucky into regiments took place, so 
that in that autumn nearly forty Union regiments were 
filled and in the field. It is of much interest, therefore, 
to know what number of Kentuckiansat this time entered 
the Confederate service. Confederate General George B. 
Hodge, writing in CoUins's History of Kentucky, says: 

" The more active partisans of each cause immediately be- 
gan to take decisive positions. The regiment of State Guards 
commanded by Colonel Roger W. Hanson at once repaired 
to Camp Boone, in Northern Tennessee, and upon that as a 
nucleus gathered companies and battalions of the same force, 
forming themselves into the organizations known during the 
war as the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th Kentucky Regiments. They 
were soon joined by the battalions commanded by Lloyd 
Tilghman and a force commanded by Colonel Wm. D. Lannon, 
late a member of the Lower House of Assembly. Simon B. 
Buckner, the commander of the State Guard, repaired to their 
camp, was commissioned by the Confederate States Briga- 
dier-General, and took command of them." (Collins, i, 342.) 

This is all the historian has upon the subject. What 
he says would not lead any one to calculate that more 
than five or six or seven thousand men were included. 
If anything like equal numbers had gone elsewhere it is 
natural to suppose Hodge would have made mention of 
the fact. That he does not, indicates that those who did 
go to other points were so comparatively few as not to 
excite the historian's attention. 

This view is sustained by the statement of the histo- 
rian Z. F. Smith, whose History of Kentucky was 
published in 1886. He says: 

"The State Guards moved out almost bodily with the 
State arms retained, following their commander. General 



138 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Simon B. Buckner. The roads were thronged with the 
hurrying volunteers, eager to join their fortunes with 
their Southern kinsmen, and in a few months it is 
estimated that well-nigh ten thousand Kentuckians had 
gone to the Confederacy. " (P. 614.) 

A confirmation of Smith's estimate is found in the 
official records of the war. In February, 1862, the 
Confederate Adjutant and Inspector-General made a 
report giving a "statement of troops in the service of the 
Confederate States." In this tabulated statement, at 
that date, February, 1862, the number set down as 
furnished by Kentucky is a little less than 8000, the 
exact number being 7950. (War Records, Serial No. 
127, p. 962.) 

Therefore, at the first we have less than ten thousand 
Confederate troops from Kentucky. To this number was 
afterwards added all who went throughout the war; all 
who joined Morgan on his trips into Kentucky ; all who 
joined Bragg when he invaded the State; and who in any 
way gave their services to the Confederacy. As to what 
this total number was, the following from Colonel Ed. 
Porter Thompson's History of the Orphan Brigade is 
valuable. Colonel Thompson was an ex-Confederate 
officer who Hved at the capital of the State, and published 
his history in 1898. He says: 

"It is estimated that the maximum [Confederate 
soldiers from Kentucky] could not have exceeded forty 
thousand." 

But adds, 

"Rosters and rolls made at various times during the 
war, and now on file in the War Office at Washington, 
indicate that twenty-five thousand is nearer the correct 
number." 

What has been said causes some of Shaler's statements 
on the subject to appear so extraordinary it is difficult to 
understand them. 



Abandonment of Neutrality 139 

Speaking of the time, September and October, 1861, 
he says: "There was at this time a common notion that 
the emigration of some forty thousand of the natural 
leaders and fighting men of the State had left it with 
little material that could be made into good soldiers " 
(p. 268). 

Again, speaking of the time, February, 1862, he uses 
this language: "The depletion of the population from 
the going South of a force that may be estimated at 
thirty-five thousand" (p. 282). 

At a later date, January, 1865, he speaks of "forty 
thousand men of military age out of the State in the 
military service of the Confederacy." Here he makes 
forty thousand the whole number from first to last. (P. 

337-) 

There is no consistency in such figures, and furthermore 
no foundation for them. 

The truth seems to be that upon the break-up of 
neutrality in September, 1861, there was an instantaneous 
movement on both sides. The Kentuckians who rushed 
off to the support of the Confederacy must have been 
under eight thousand. The Kentuckians who rallied to 
the flag of the Union rapidly filled up between thirty and 
forty regiments, and if we include the Home Guard 
companies, more men entered the Union service at that 
time than went into the Confederate service throughout 
the entire struggle. 



CHAPTER X 

THE RALLY 

GREAT injustice has been done to the Unionists of 
Kentucky by the use in historical writing of hasty 
and unguarded expressions made in time of excitement 
by prominent persons who were in error at the time. It is 
of no consequence by whom a statement is made, or by 
whom an opinion is given, if, upon investigation, it can 
be shown that the statement or opinion is clearly wrong. 
From the beginning of the war all through its course, and 
through all the years since, there has been more or less 
misunderstanding of Kentucky's true attitude in the war. 
It was this known and felt misapprehension that led 
General Lindsey in the preface to the Adjutant-General's 
Report to use the language : " It has been fashionable with 
some to reflect upon the loyalty of our State." The 
movements of the war period were so rapid and vast no 
one took time to remove erroneous impressions which 
may have started accidentally or through thoughtlessness, 
and as no history of Kentucky has been written which 
might correct errors, they have been suffered to remain 
uncontradicted, although they were in fact contradicted at 
the time by the events then taking place. 

A communication from Adjutant-General L. Thomas 
to the War Department, October 2i, 1861, contains the 
following remarkable statement. 

"Left Indianapolis October 16 for Louisville, Ky., where 
we arrived 12:30 o'clock p. m., and had an interview with 
General Sherman, commanding the Department of the Cum- 

140 



The Rally 141 

berland. He gave a gloomy picture of affairs in Kentucky, 
stating that the young men were generally secessionists and 
had joined the Confederates, while the Union men, the aged 
and conservatives, would not enroll themselves to engage in 
conflict with their relations on the other side. But few regi- 
ments could be raised." ( War Records, series i, vol. 4, p. 313.) 

On the loth of October, 1861, General Sherman 
himself, in a letter to President Lincoln, said : "The 
Kentuckians, instead of assisting, call from every quarter 
for protection against local secessionists." {War Records, 
series i, vol. 4, p. 300.) 

General McCook also said in a letter to General 
Sherman, dated November 8, 1861 : "I have no faith in 
Kentucky's loyalty." 

These expressions have been quoted in historical works, 
and have aided in giving an erroneous and unjust idea of 
the true condition of affairs in Kentucky at that time. 
The officers named are of high authority, and they were 
so situated that they ought to have known the true state 
of the case. But even the most astute men may fall into 
error, and if the error can be shown conclusively it can 
only be said that a mistake was made, even if made by 
such distinguished men. 

The injustice done gives reason for a distinct and 
definite statement of the attitude of Kentucky at that 
time toward the war. It has been shown how the 
Kentucky people voted in August, 1861, and previously. 
A majority of nearly sixty thousand for the Union 
ought to give assurance of their loyalty, in so far as 
expression at the polls can give it. But action is better 
than words, and if it can be shown that the Kentucky 
people actually enlisted in the war to fight as they voted, 
that surely ought to be a satisfactory answer to every 
possible question. 

General Sherman is reported as saying the young men 
of Kentucky were generally secessionists, and the others 



142 Union Cause in Kentucky 

would not enroll themselves in the conflict. Also, that 
few regiments could be raised in Kentucky. 

Now, at that time, October and November, 1861, it is 
a remarkable fact that more young men had enlisted in 
Union regiments in Kentucky than went into the Confeder- 
ate service all told, throughout the whole period of the 
war. In a letter to the present writer, dated January 
18, 1897, while the History of the Union Regiments of 
Kentucky was in course of preparation, Colonel L. H. 
Rousseau used the following language : 

"I am glad to know you are engaged upon a history of 
the Kentucky regiments. They sprang to the country's 
defence promptly and made a fine record. No proper 
account of them has ever been made." 

Also, Justice John M. Harlan in a letter at the same 
time, said: 

"The country at large has never properly understood 
what was accomplished by the Union men of the border 
States." 

In the year 1866 the Adjutant-General of Kentucky, 
General D. W. Lindsey, published his report in two 
large volumes, giving the names and dates of enrolment 
of all the Kentucky soldiers in the Union service. Those 
volumes are an enduring monument to the fact that the 
loyal Kentuckians "sprang to their country's defence." 
Upon their pages it is set forth in perpetual remembrance 
that in the summer and fall of 1861 twenty-eight full 
regiments of infantry and six full regiments of cavalry 
were enlisted and put in the field. 

In his report the Adjutant-General says: 

"Under circumstances far more trying than those sur- 
rounding any other States in the Union, Kentucky 
promptly responded to the quotas assigned her." 

The rosters in his work show that a large proportion of 
the men who enlisted in the summer and fall of 1861 
enlisted in the months of August, September, and 



The Rally 143 

October. Two months after October, the Adjutant- 
General made a report showing the organization of the 
twenty-eight infantry regiments with 24,026 men, six 
regiments of cavalry, 4979 men, and two batteries of 198 
men; in all, 29,203. Besides these there were numerous 
companies of Home Guards. 

Every one of those regiments had a proud record. 
Many of them were in active service before they were 
mustered into the service. Some went with General 
Sherman from Louisville to Muldraugh's Hill to resist 
the advance of General S. B. Buckner in September, 
1 861. Some fought at Barbourville, and some at Green 
River; some at Albany and some at London, in the same 
month. In October, others were engaged at Upton Hill, 
Camp Wild Cat, West Liberty, Cave City, Woodbury, 
Morgantown, and Rochester; in November, at Ivy 
Mountain, Brownsville, Somerset; in December, at 
Bacon Creek, Rowletts, Sacramento; in January, 1862, 
at Paintsville, Middle Creek, Mill Spring, and Pound Gap. 

The regiments which thus sprung to the defence of the 
country were organized, to a large extent, in the field. 
It has been well said of them, "In many instances their 
camp guards while in process of formation were the out- 
posts of the army." 

When respect for neutrality prevented organization in 
Kentucky, Camp Joe Holt was established opposite 
Louisville, on the Indiana side, and Camp Clay near 
Cincinnati. In the former Lovell H. Rousseau assembled 
the men which largely made up the Fifth Infantry and 
Second Cavalry, also Battery A. Rousseau was the first 
Colonel of the Fifth Infantry, but soon became Major- 
General, and the regiment was led by Colonels H. M. 
Buckley and William W. Berry, until the close of the 
war. The Second Kentucky Cavalry was led by Colonels 
Buckner Board and Thomas P. Nicholas, and Lieutenant- 
Colonels Thos. B. Cochran, Elijah S. Watts, W. H. 



144 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Eifort, and Owen Starr, Colonel Nicholas being the son 
of the eminent jurist, S. S. Nicholas, and Colonel Cochran 
afterwards was Chancellor of the Louisville Chancery 
Court. 

At Camp Clay the First Kentucky Infantry was 
organized by Colonel J. V. Guthrie, and the Second 
Infantry by Colonel W. E. Woodruff. These two regi- 
ments were in West Virginia as early as July, 1861, fight- 
ing under Generals McClellan, Rosecrans, and J. D. 
Cox, where they remained until February, 1862, when 
they joined the Army of the Cumberland and fought at 
Shiloh. They served in all the campaigns of the Army 
of the Cumberland. The First was for a long time led 
by Colonel David A. Enyart, and the Second by Colonel 
Thomas D, Sedgwick. 

The first steps toward regimental organization in the 
State were taken in Garrard County. General Nelson 
arrived there in July and appointed Frank Wolford, W. 
J. Landrum, Judge Thomas E. Bramlette, Speed S. Fry, 
and T. T. Garrard to raise regiments. Wolford became 
Colonel of the First Cavalry, with which was also Colonel 
Silas Adams. Bramlette raised the Third Infantry, with 
which served Colonels W, T. Scott, McKee, Spencer, 
Dunlap, Lieutenant-Colonels D. R. Collier, William A. 
Bullitt, and Majors Charles H. Buford and John Brennan. 

Fry raised the Fourth Infantry. He being promoted, 
the regiment was led by Colonels John T. Croxton (after- 
wards Brigadier- and Brevet Major-General) and R. M. 
Kelly; Lieutenant-Colonels Burgess Hunt, J. H.Tomp- 
kins; Major J. W. Jacobs, now Brigadier-General, 
U. S. A., retired. 

Garrard raised the Seventh Infantry. Being promoted, 
the regiment was led by Colonel Reuben May and 
Lieutenant-Colonels J. D. Ridgell, John Lucas, T. J. 
Daniel; Majors I. N. Cardwell, H. W. Adams, and E. B. 
Treadway. 



The Rally 145 

Also, at Camp Dick Robinson, Colonel William A. 
Hoskins began the organization of the Twelfth Infantry, 
which, under his leadership, and that of Colonel L. H. 
Rousseau, served in all the campaigns of the West, and 
ended its long career in North Carolina in June, 1865. 
With it were Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery Howard ; 
Majors W. M. Worsham, J. M. Owens; Adjutants J. M. 
Hall, J. F. McKee, E. F. Hays, Thomas Speed. 

The Kentucky regiments naturally formed wherever 
they were most needed. We have seen how they began 
at Camp Dick Robinson, which, though in the central part 
of the State, was near the dividing line between the fine 
fertile blue-grass section and the rougher mountain region. 
So, also, for the protection of the easterly part of the 
State a number of regiments organized ; the Eighth 
Infantry, under Colonels Sidney M. Barnes and Reuben 
May, in Estill and the adjoining counties ; the Fourteenth 
Infantry, raised by Colonel Laban T. Moore, at Louisa 
and the adjoining country. Associated with him were 
Colonels John C. Cochran, George W. Gallup ; Lieu- 
tenant-Colonels J. R. Brown, Orlando Brown, R. M. 
Thomas; Majors William B. Burke, Drury J. Burchett. 

The Sixteenth Infantry by Colonel Charles A. Mar- 
shall, in the Maysville section of the State, With this 
regiment were also Colonels J, W. Craddock and J. W. 
Gault; Lieutenant-Colonels Joseph Doniphan, J. B, 
Harris, Thomas E. Burns, John S. White; and Major J. 
P. Harbeson. 

The Twenty-fourth Infantry, raised by Colonels Lewis 
B. Grigsby and John S. Hurt, in Montgomery and 
adjoining counties ; Lieutenant-Colonel Lafayette North ; 
Major William H. Smith. 

In the central and south central portions of the State a 
number of regiments were raised. The Sixth Cavalry, 
Colonel D. J. Hallisy, afterwards Colonel Louis D. 
Watkins* Lieutenant-Colonels Reuben Mundy, W. P. 



146 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

Roper; Majors Lewis A. Gratz, William H, Fidler, W. H. 
Stafford; Adjutants Hugh B. Kelly, James R. Meagher. 

The Ninth Infantry, Colonels B. C. Grider, George H. 
Cram; Lieutenant-Colonels Allen J. Roark, John H. 
Grider, C. D. Bailey; Majors William J. Henson, 
William Starling. 

The Tenth Infantry, Colonels John M. Harlan, William 
H. Hays; Lieutenant-Colonel G. C. Wharton; Major 
Henry G. Davidson; Adjutant W. J. Lisle; Quarter- 
master Samuel Matlack. 

The Thirteenth Infantry, Colonel Edward H. Hobson, 
who, being promoted, was succeeded by Colonel William 
E. Hobson; Lieutenant-Colonels John B. Carlisle, 
Benjamin P. Estes; Majors John P. Duncan, J. R. 
Hindman. 

The Fifteenth Infantry, Colonels Curran Pope, James 
B. Forman, Marion C. Taylor; Lieutenant-Colonels 
George P. Jouett, J. R, Snider, Noah Cartright, W. G. 
Halpin; Majors William P. Campbell, H. S. Kalfus, James 
S. Allen, A. H. Chambers; Adjutants William P. Mc- 
Dowell, David N. Sharp. 

The Eighteenth Infantry, Colonel William A. Warner; 
Lieutenant-Colonels John J. Landrum, H. K. Milward. 

The Nineteenth Infantry, Colonel W. J. Landrum ; 
Lieutenant-Colonel John Cowan. 

The Twentieth Infantry, Colonel Sanders Bruce; 
Lieutenant-Colonels Charles S. Hanson, brother of 
General Roger Hanson of the Confederate service, 
Thomas B. Waller; Majors Benjamin F. Buckner, 
Frank E. Walcott. 

The Twenty-first Infantry, Colonels Ethelbert L. 
Dudley, S. W. Price; Lieutenant-Colonels B. A. Wheat, 
James C. Evans, W. R. Milward. 

The Twenty-second Infantry, Colonels Daniel W. 
Lindsey, George W. Monroe; Lieutenant-Colonel 
William J. Worthington. 



The Rally 147 

The Twenty-third Infantry, Colonel Marc Mundy; 
Lieutenant-Colonels John P. Jackson, James C. Fay, 
George W. Northrup; Adjutants W. H. Mundy, J. P. 
Duke. 

The Twenty-seventh Infantry, Colonel Charles D. 
Pennebaker; Lieutenant-Colonel John H. Ward; 
Majors John Carlisle, S. J. Coyne, Alex Magruder; 
Adjutants D. B. Waggener, James B. Speed; Quarter- 
master Thomas R. McBeath. 

The Twenty-eighth Infantry, Colonels William P. 
Boone, J. Rowan Boone; Majors A .Y. Johnson, John 
Gault, George W. Barth. 

The Thirty-fourth Infantry was organized at Louisville 
by Colonel Henry Dent. It was afterwards led by 
Colonels Selby Harney, William Y. Dillard, and Joseph 
B. Watkins. 

The Fourth Cavalry, Colonel Jesse Bayles, was 
organized near Louisville in September. With this regi- 
ment were also Colonels Green Clay Smith and Wickliffe 
Cooper; Lieutenant-Colonels L. Gwynne, J. Ruckstuhl; 
Adjutants M. C. Bayles, George K, Speed. 

The Fifth Cavalry was raised in the south central 
section of the State by Colonel D, R, Haggard. On 
the 31st of October, 1861, General Sherman, in a 
report, said: "Colonel Haggard is at Columbia with a 
regiment." Connected with this regiment were Colonel 
(afterwards General) W. P. Sanders, who fell at Knox- 
ville, Colonel Oliver L. Baldwin ; Lieutenant-Colonels 
Isaac Scott, W. T. Hoblitzell; Majors W. H. Owsley, 
T. C. Winfrey, J. Q. Owsley, C, T. Cheek, James L. 
Wharton; Surgeon William Forrester. 

In the westerly part of the State the Seventeenth In- 
fantry was raised by Colonel John H. McHenry, and 
later it was led by Colonel A. M. Stout. With it were 
Lieutenant-Colonels Robert Vaughn and Ion B, Nail. 

The Twenty-fifth Infantry was raised by Colonel (after- 



148 Union Cause in Kentucky 

wards General) James M. Shackelford and Lieutenant-Col- 
onel Benjamin H. Bristow. With it were many well-known 
men: Majors William B. Wall, Isaac Calhoun, D. M. 
Claggett; Adjutants John P. Ritter, Ed. L. Starling; 
Quartermaster B. T. Perkins; Captains Sam K. Cox, 
Frank E. Bristow, and T. W. Campbell; also, Lieutenants 
Campbell H. Johnson and Walter Evans, now Judge 
of the United States District Court, Western District 
of Kentucky. These two regiments were in camp at 
Calhoun, on Green River, about twenty-five miles south 
of Owensboro. From thence they went to Fort Donelson 
and fought there in Grant's army, and from thence to 
Shiloh. After that they were consolidated. 

The camp at Calhoun was commanded by General 
Thomas L. Crittenden. The Eleventh Infantry was 
there — Colonel Pierce B. Hawkins, who was succeeded 
by Colonel S. P. Love. The Lieutenant-Colonel was E. 
L. Mottley; Majors, W. M. Houchin, E. F. Kinnaird. 

There also was the Twenty-sixth Infantry, Colonel S. 
G. Burbridge, who, being promoted, was succeeded 
by Cicero Maxwell, and he by Thomas B. Fairleigh. 
Lieutenant-Colonel, James F. Lauck; Majors, John L. 
Davidson, J. L. Frost, Ignatius Mattingly, C. J. Wilson, 
F. M, Page; Adjutants, A. J. Wells, James P. Dawson, 
Richard Vance; Quartermaster, John H. Morton; 
Surgeon, E. O. Brown; Chaplain, William M. Grubbs. 
Among the Captains were Gabriel Netter, J. H. Ashcraft, 
and Albert N. Keigwin. 

The Third Cavalry was also at Calhoun. It was raised 
by Colonel James S. Jackson, who, being promoted, was 
succeeded by E. H. Murray, who also became a General. 
The Lieutenant-Colonels were, from first to last, A. C. 
Gillam, James Holmes, Robert H. King, Green Clay 
Smith, W. S. Megowan, A. C. Shacklett, Lewis W. 
Wolfiey, George F. White, John W. Breathitt. 

To the camp at Calhoun many men came through the 



The Rally 149 

Confederate lines in the fall of 1861, from the southern 
part of the State. Among them were fragments of a 
regiment raised near Hopkinsville, in sound of the guns 
at Camp Boone over the Tennessee line during the 
summer, by Colonel James F. Buckner, a lawyer and 
large land and slave owner, who maintained his men in 
camp for weeks at his own expense, hauling provisions 
from his farm. He had obtained enough guns to arm one 
company only. The Confederates coming into the State 
caused his men to leave for the camp at Calhoun. They 
were overtaken by Forrest and scattered. The men 
found their way to Calhoun, but Colonel Buckner was 
captured and for a long time held a prisoner in the South. 

Greensburg, on the upper waters of Green River, 
was a point in some respects similar to Calhoun. There 
the volunteers concentrated to fill up the regiments, 
organizing under the direction of Generals W. T. Ward 
and E. H. Hobson, Colonels John H. Ward, W. E. 
Hobson, and other officers. 

A camp of instruction was established at Bardstown. 
Lebanon was also a point of rendezvous. 

In this way the forming regiments were kept well out 
in the State, and it can be easily seen how their camp 
guards were the outposts of the Federal forces in Ken- 
tucky in the fall of 186 1. It is not intended to make 
any detailed mention of these splendid regiments and 
their resolute and courageous leaders, but only to show, 
by a brief summary, that at the time the doubt was 
expressed about forming Union regiments in Kentucky 
many of these were already filled, and the others were 
filling so rapidly that in the month following all were 
completely organized and in the field on active duty. 

It is not strange that men who were not fully advised, 
although in high position, did not grasp the fact that the 
Kentuckians were crowding into regimental organizations 
under the most trying circumstances. In the midst of 



ISO Union Cause in Kentucky- 

pressing duties, General Sherman and Adjutant-General 
Thomas fell into an error as to the real situation in 
Kentucky in October, 1861, and under the circumstances 
they ought to be held excusable, especially as they 
certainly did not intend to do injustice. 

But for historians to bring forward such unguarded 
utterances and adduce them to sustain the unwarranted 
assumption that there was but little military enthusiasm, 
as far as enlistments were concerned, and little patriotic 
ordor which led to volunteering, is without excuse in the 
face of the record facts of the period. {Memorial History 
of Louisville, p. 197.) 

Even the historian Shaler, who finds space to detail 
what he calls the hegira of Kentucky people south in the 
summer and fall of 1861, and swells the number to 40,000 
at that time, yet does the faint justice to say, in a few 
words, that out of what was left, Kentucky's quota of 
Union troops was always full. He correctly stated that the 
quota of Union troops was promptly raised, and he might 
have added, more troops were raised than required by 
the quota, but the accompanying statement that 40,000 
Confederates had gone from the State is an error. Not 
that many went during the entire war. The facts are 
more correctly stated in Smith's history (p. 614): "In 
a few months it is estimated that well-nigh ten thousand 
Kentuckians had gone to the Confederacy." 

The rush of volunteers into the service in the summer 
and fall of 1861 filled up the regiments which served that 
year, and they continued in service through the war, 
being constantly recruited by fresh volunteers. 

In the eventful year of 1862, the First and Second 
infantry, which had served in West Virginia in 1861, were 
brought back and united with Buell's army; the Seven- 
teenth and Twenty-fifth were with Grant at Donelson; 
the Tenth, Twelfth, and Fourth Infantry and First 
Cavalry were at Mill Spring with General Thomas. After 



The Rally 151 

these events Grant's army went up the Tennessee River 
to the battle-field of Shiloh, and thither General Buell's 
troops marched out of Kentucky, and from Nashville. 
At Shiloh fourteen Union Kentucky regiments were 
engaged. From Shiloh some marched down the 
Mississippi with Grant, while others marched with Buell 
through Northern Alabama and up through Tennessee 
and Kentucky to Louisville, and out to Perryville, where 
eight Kentucky regiments were engaged. Then the 
march was back to Tennessee, where thirteen were 
engaged at Murfreesboro. Nine participated in General 
Burnside's East Tennessee expedition in 1863. At the 
same time fifteen were with General Rosecrans and 
fought at Chickamauga. In the Atlanta campaign there 
were more than thirty. 

During the summer of 1862, when all the central and 
eastern portions of Kentucky were overrun by Bragg's 
invasion, eight regiments of cavalry and three of infantry 
were raised. This is a striking fact and deserves particular 
mention. Bragg had come, as he stated, for the * ' redemp- 
tion of Kentucky. ' * The Confederate authorities had been 
persuaded that the people of Kentucky were Southern 
in sentiment, and great armies came in to give oppor- 
tunity for a grand uprising to throw off the "Northern 
yoke." The great armies were fought by Kentucky 
troops, and retired from the State with not more than 
two thousand five hundred recruits, all told. In the same 
summer, eleven new Union regiments were filling up, 
and in the fall they were full. They were as follows: 

In the central part of the State, the Seventh Cavalry 
under Colonels Leonidas Metcalfe and John Faulkner, 
Lieutenant-Colonels W. C. Oden, T. T. Vimont, W. 
W. Bradley, Majors Charles Milward, W. O. Smith, 
Robert Collier, A. S. Bloom, Adjutants John B. Camp- 
bell, F. G. McCrea, D. P. Watson. 

In the western part of the State, the Eighth Cavalry 



152 Union Cause in Kentucky 

under Colonels James M. Shackelford and Benjamin H. 
Bristow, Lieutenant-Colonel J. M. HoUoway, Majors J. 
M. Kennedy, J. W. Weatherford, S. M. Starling, Adjut- 
ant J. E. Huffman, Chaplain George F. Pentecost. 

In the central part of the State the Ninth Cavalry, 
Colonel R. T. Jacob, Lieutenant-Colonel John Boyle, 
Majors J. T. Farris, W. C. Moreau, George W. Rue, J. 
R. Page, J. C. Brent, Adjutants U. W. Oldham, Frank 
H. Pope, Surgeon Dr. William Bailey. 

In the easterly-middle part of the State, the Tenth 
Cavalry, Colonels Joshua Tevis, C. J. Walker, Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel R. R. Maltby, Majors J. L. Foley, 
William A. Doniphan, John Mason Brown, J. M. Taylor, 

A. T. Wood, Adjutants Ridgeley Wilson, J. N. 
Wallingford. 

In the same part of the State, the Eleventh Cavalry, 
Colonel A. W. Holman, Lieutenant-Colonels W. E. 
Riley, A. J. Alexander, Milton Graham, Majors W. O. 
Boyle, Duvall English, Fred. Slater, Surgeon L. L. 
Pinkerton, Adjutants W. P. Pierce, Harry Gee. 

In the middle-westerly part of the State, the Twelfth 
Cavalry, under Colonels Q. C. Shanks and Eugene W. 
Crittenden, Lientenant-Colonels A. W. Holman, James 
T. Bramlette, Majors N. L. Lightfoot, W. R. Kinney, 
I. H. Stout, Julius L. Delfosse, J. B. Harrison, George 
F. Barnes, Adjutants G. J. Blewitt, Z. B. Freeman, 
William Noland, T. E, Tyler, Surgeons E. L. Brown, L. 

B. Littlepage. 

In the easterly part of the State, the Fourteenth 
Cavalry under Colonel H. C. Lilly, Lieutenant-Colonel 
Andrew Herd, Majors J. W. Stivers, Alfred Smith, J. C. 
Eversole, R. T. Williams, Adjutants F. B. Tucker, John 
H. Massie, Thomas C. Reed. 

In the westerly part of the State, the Fifteenth Cavalry 
under Colonel Gabriel Netter, Lieutenant-Colonel 
A. P. Henry, Major Wiley Waller, Adjutant John W. 



The Rally 153 

Lockhead, Quartermaster Thomas Alexander, Commis- 
sary P. H. Darby. 

In the south-central part of the State, the Thirty- 
second Infantry under Colonel Thomas Z. Morrow, 
Major John A. Morrison, Adjutant William J. 
Hume. 

In the middle part of the State, the Thirty-third 
Infantry under Colonel J, F. Lauck and Adjutant 
Dawson. 

In the eastern part of the State, the Thirty-ninth 
Infantry under Colonels John Dills, David A. Mins, 
Lieutenant-Colonel S. M. Ferguson, Majors John B. 
Auxier, Martin Thornbury, Adjutants L. J. Hampton, 
J. F. Stewart, R. S. Huey. 

All these were recruited in 1862. 

Subsequent to that year, regiments were organized as 
follows : 

In the southerly-middle part of the State, the Thirtieth 
Infantry under Colonels F. N. Alexander and William B. 
Craddock, Major Thomas Mahoney, Adjutant Thomas 
J. Hardin. 

In the western part of the State, the Thirty-fifth 
Infantry under Colonel E. A. Starling, Lieutenant- 
Colonel E. R. Weir, Major Frank H. Bristow, Adjutant 
Thomas W. Wing, Quartermaster Finis H. Little. 

In the central part of the State, the Thirty-seventh 
Infantry under Colonels Charles S. Hanson and Benjamin 
J. Spaulding, Major Sam Martin, Adjutant Caswell 
Watts, Quartermaster W. O. Watts, J. M. Mattingly, 
Surgeon J. R. Duncan. 

In the northerly-middle part of the State, the Fortieth 
Infantry under Colonel Clinton J. True, Lieutenant- 
Colonel Matthew MuUins, Majors T. H. Mannen, F. H. 
Bierbower, Adjutants E. C. Barlow, J. B. True. 

In the middle part of the State, the Forty-fifth Infantry 
under Colonels John Mason Brown, Lieutenant-Colonel 



154 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

Lewis M. Clark, Majors N. A. Brown, J. C. Henderson, 
Adjutant James Seaton. 

In the eastern part of the State, the Forty-seventh 
Infantry under Colonel Andrew H. Clark, Lieutenant- 
Colonel A. C. Wilson, Major Thomas H. Barnes, 
Adjutant G. A. Hanaford. 

In the westerly part of the State, the Forty-eighth 
Infantry under Colonel Hartwell T. Burge, Lieutenant- 
Colonel W. W. Hester, Major William H. Hoyt, 
Adjutants J. W. Lockhead, William Sheeler. 

In the easterly part of the State, the Forty-ninth 
Infantry under Colonel John G. Eve, Lieutenant-Colonel 
P. Stratton, Major James H. Davidson, Adjutant James 
H. Tinsley. 

In the westerly-middle part of the State, the Fifty- 
second Infantry under Colonels John H. Grider, Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel S. F. Johnson, Major John B. Tyler, and 
Adjutant William H. Murrell. 

In the northerly-central part of the State, the Fifty- 
third Infantry under Colonel C. J. True, Lieutenant- 
Colonel W. C. Johnson, Major J. G. Francis, Adjutant 
F. D. Tunis. 

In the central part of the State, the Fifty-fourth 
Infantry under Colonel H. M. Buckley, Lieutenant- 
Colonel John G. Rogers, Major John D. Russell, 
Adjutant Ed. Mitchell. 

In the northerly-middle portion of the State, the Fifty- 
fifth Infantry under Colonel Weden O'Neal, Lieutenant- 
Colonel T. J. Williams, Major Silas Howe, Adjutants J. 
E. Calvert, R. C. Snead. 

In the westerly part of the State, the Seventeenth 
Cavalry, under Colonel S, F. Johnson, Lieutenant- 
Colonel T. W. Campbell, Majors John B. Tyler, 
N. C. Lawrence, T. J. Lovelace, Adjutant David R. 
Murray. 

In addition to the regiments named were the Bat- 



The Rally 155 

teries — the First Kentucky Battery, Captain Simmonds, 
organized in 1861 ; Battery A, or Stone's Battery, 
organized in 1861, at Louisville; Battery B, organized at 
Camp Dick Robinson, 1861 ; Battery C, organized by 
Captain John W. Neville, 1863; Battery E, organized 
by Captain John J. Hawes, 1863. 

During all the years of the war, recruiting was con- 
stantly going on for the depleted ranks of the regiments 
in the field, and fragments of regiments were raised — 
companies and battalions which would be consolidated 
with other organizations. Throughout the war there was 
no time that Union men were not enlisting for the 
protection of the State as well as for the demands of the 
front. 

According to the report of the Adjutant-General, 
Kentucky furnished over 75,000 white soldiers to the 
Union service, including the active state guards, who 
served under orders along with the regularly enlisted men 
in organized regiments, only they did not go out of the 
State. 

When this number is compared with the actual number 
in the Confederate service, it will be seen that it is three 
times as many. From the war records it is difificult to 
discover how there could have been as many as 25,000 
Confederates, all told, from Kentucky. Shaler at first 
stated that 40,000 went out at once, in the fall of 1861, 
which statement is manifestly absurd ; Smith putting the 
number at 10,000. Afterwards Shaler mentions the 
whole number of Confederates as thirty or forty thou- 
sand. Ed. Porter Thompson, in the Introduction to his 
History of the "Orphan Brigade," estimates the total 
number to have been near 25,000. As the relative 
numbers can be understood from what is stated, and as 
the 75,000 Union soldiers served everywhere with credit, 
it is difficult to see why Shaler, or any other historian, 
should place the Confederates in some sort of halo of 



156 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

glory superior to the Union troops from Kentucky. He 
reaches the conclusion from a consideration of Morgan's 
Cavalry, which he says never exceeded 4000 and was 
often less, and not Kentuckians wholly; and the First 
Confederate brigade, or "Orphan Brigade" which, 
perhaps, never numbered more than any average brigade. 
He dwells upon the valor of these two small commands, 
but is oblivious to the splendid contingent of Union 
troops from Kentucky, not thrown together as a body, 
but serving in all the commands as regiments and 
always mentioned in the reports with credit. 

The general officers furnished by the State of Kentucky 
and under whom her troops largely served were as follows : 



Maj.-Gen. Robert Anderson, Brig.-Gen. Edward H. Hobson, 

Maj.-Gen. William Nelson, Brig.-Gen. James M. Shackelford, 

Maj.-Gen. Thomas L. Crittenden, Brig.-Gen. Green Clay Smith, 

Maj.-Gen. William T. Ward, Brig.-Gen. D. W. Lindsey, 

Maj.-Gen. Thomas J. Wood, Brig.-Gen. W. E. Woodruff, 

Maj.-Gen. Cassius M. Clay, Brig.-Gen. William P. Sanders, 

Maj.-Gen. S. B. Burbridge, Brig.-Gen. Eli Long, 

Maj.-Gen. Lovell H. Rousseau, Brig.-Gen. Louis D. Watkins, 

Maj.-Gen. R. W. Johnson, Brig.-Gen. T. T. Garrard, 

Brig.-Gen. John T. Croxton, Brevet Brevet Brig.-Gen. S. W. Price, 

Major-General, Brevet Brig.-Gen. Alex. M. Stout, 

Brig.-Gen. Walter C. Whittaker, Brevet Brig.-Gen. Wm. J. Landrum, 

Brig.-Gen. Jerre T. Boyle, Brevet Brig.-Gen. E. H. Murray, 

Brig.-Gen. Speed S. Fry, Adj. -Gen. John W. Finnell. 
Brig.-Gen. James S. Jackson, 



The service of these ofificers was faithful and able 
and in many instances brilliant. They were patriots both 
to their State and country. The greater number led 
troops at the front and in the great battles. Others 
were mainly employed in protecting the State from ravage 
and rapine. No Kentuckians can be named to whom 
the people of the State owe a heavier debt of gratitude. 
Yet we scarcely find them even named in the histories of 



The Rally i57 

Kentucky. Some are not mentioned, and those who are, 
are censured. Space is found to extol the services of 
Confederate ofificers from Kentucky and no blame is 
attached to any of them, but the devoted and resolute 
men who led the Union troops from Kentucky are treated 
as though they had been offenders. 



CHAPTER XI 

LOCATION OF UNION SENTIMENT 

IT might occur to the casual observer that it would 
be natural to find the sentiment of Unionism in Ken- 
tucky principally along the northern border, and that 
it would be weaker in the central and southern parts. 
Therefore,as so little has been written to put the Kentucky 
Unionists in their true light before the country, it will be 
of interest to show in what parts of the State the Union 
sentiment prevailed. It has already been shown in the 
chapter on the voting of 1861 that only in the extreme 
west end was there a secession majority in June, 1861. 
The result was the same at the August election, 1861. 
The Union sentiment was neither confined to any narrow 
limits, nor excluded from any sections. Only in the Con- 
gressional district in the extreme west end was it less 
strong than secession, and even in that district there were 
6225 Union voters as against 8988 Southern Rights 
voters at the Congressional election of June, 1861. All 
the other districts were Union by large majorities. That 
which was shown by voting was confirmed by the enlist- 
ment of the Union soldiers. The rally to the flag was 
from no special section, but from all parts of the State. 
The idea has been expressed that the strong support of 
the Union came from the mountain districts, where there 
were few slaveholders, and not from the slave-holding 
sections. Such an idea is emphatically wrong. It would 
not have been possible for the east end of the State to have 

158 



Location of Union Sentiment 1 59 

furnished anything like enough troops to fill the quota 
assigned to the State. The quotas were more than filled 
by enlistments in large numbers in all the districts, 
precisely as the Union sentiment was shown by the results 
of the elections. 

The idea has also been expressed that the fertile and 
wealthy part of Kentucky known as the Blue Grass region 
furnished Confederate soldiers, while the Union soldiers 
were from the less favored sections. The historian Shaler 
is imbued with this idea. He says : 

" The Confederacy received the youth and strength from 
the richest part of the Kentucky soil. The so-called Blue 
Grass soil sent the greater part of its men of the richer families 
into the Confederate army, while the Union troops, though 
from all parts of the State, came in greatest abundance from 
those who dwelt on thinner soils." 

He then adds that the Confederate troops were finer 
than the Union, being from the richer parts of the State. 

(P. 374.) 

This assumption can be better understood when con- 
sidered in connection with Shaler's extraordinary state- 
ments as to the numbers of the Confederate troops 
mentioned elsewhere in this work. 

The Blue Grass region of Kentucky was Union in 
sentiment by a large majority, and furnished many more 
Union than Confederate soldiers. The division of senti- 
ment is illustrated by the fact that in the chief city of the 
Blue Grass region, Lexington, there were three military 
companies before and at the time the war came on, and 
two of these adhered to the Union, while one went 
South. 

It would have been singular if the Congressional 
district which voted more than 2500 Union majority in 
June, 1861, and in August, 1861, should have sent its 
fighting men to the Confederacy, nor did it, in fact. It 



i6o Union Cause in Kentucky 

appears from the report of the Adjutant-General that 
twenty Union regiments were organized in that portion of 
the State usually denominated the Blue Grass. This 
would make about one fourth of all the Union troops 
furnished by the State. From the best information 
obtainable, it appears that from ten counties, all being 

Blue Grass, ' ' there were enlisted 8500 Union soldiers, as 
follows: Jessamine, seven companies; Woodford, seven; 
Bourbon, ten ; Fayette, eleven ; Franklin, eight ; Clark, 
nine; Scott, seven ; Harrison, eight ; Mercer, ten ; Boyle, 
eight. There being one hundred and ten counties in the 
State, if the others responded equal to these, there would 
have been nearly 100,000 soldiers from the State, True, 
some counties were thinly populated, but, on the other 
hand, there were many more populous than these ten. 

We may take ten other counties with a similar result; 
Montgomery, seven companies ; Bath, eight ; Mason, ten ; 
Fleming, seven ; Pendleton, seven ; Madison, ten ; Ken- 
ton, fourteen; Campbell, twelve; Bracken, six; Grant, 
six; making a total of eighty-six companies. 

All the companies mentioned were in the regular mili- 
tary organizations. There were, besides, numerous 
Home Guard companies, which, as has been shown, 
served with the regular troops, and were as effective for 
service as any others. 

There are no grounds for the statement that the Con- 
federacy received its strength from the richest parts of 
Kentucky soil, and that the Union troops were from the 
thinner soils. Nor are there any grounds for saying the 
greater part of the men from the richer families went into 
the Confederate army. Such statements are nothing but 
assumption. The division of Kentucky troops was in no 
way unlike the division of sentiment shown by the voting. 
Every part of the State was Union in sentiment, except 
the extreme west end, and it was from all the other 
portions of the State where Union sentiment prevailed, 



Location of Union Sentiment i6i 

including the Blue Grass, that the main body of the Union 
troops came. 

The Blue Grass section, which is the richest part of 
Kentucky, comprises, strictly speaking, nearly twenty 
counties, of which Fayette, with its capital Lexington, is 
about the centre. In these counties the predominance of 
Union sentiment was shown in the Congressional election 
of June, 1861, and in the August election of 1861, and in 
this general section of the State, it is shown by examina- 
tion of the Adjutant-General's report that as many 
Union volunteers enlisted as went to the Confederacy, all 
told, from the entire State. Lexington, Frankfort, and 
Covington were Union cities; also such towns as Dan- 
ville, Paris, Versailles, Nicholasville, Georgetown, Rich- 
mond. Many of the most distinguished Union leaders 
were from these places — the Crittendens, Breckinridges, 
Marshalls, Robinsons, Goodloes, Smiths, Clays, Buck- 
ners, Harlans, Lindseys, Bell, Fry, Dudley, Huston, 
Davis, Combs, Burnams, Kinkeads, Williams, Prall, Tem- 
ple, Dunlap, and many others. The division of sentiment 
was no more marked in the Blue Grass than anywhere else. 

Nothing is more familiar to Kentuckians than the 
division of families, and this division was in like propor- 
tion with the division shown by the voting. 

The following statement furnished by Colonel R. M. 
Kelly, who was Colonel of the Fourth Kentucky Infantry, 
and a well-known citizen of Louisville, illustrates the 
division of families. He says: 

" My father, who was cashier and manager of the branch of 
the Northern Bank of Kentucky at Paris, Bourbon County, 
lived on a place of some fifteen acres. On the east and 
adjoining was the place of his step-brother, Charles Brent, 
and on the west was another step-brother, Hugh Brent. Both 
the Brents were men of means and leading citizens. On the 
other side of the town resided Garrett Davis, my uncle by 
marriage, who had two sons, my cousins. I and four of my 
n 



i62 Union Cause in Kentucky 

brothers went into the Union army; Hugh Brent, son of 
Charles, was a captain of a Home Guard company, in which 
was my brother-in-law. His two next sons went into the 
Union army. The three sons of Hugh Brent went into the 
Rebel army. Garrett Davis's oldest son went to the Ken- 
tucky Legislature as a Union representative from Bourbon, 
One of my cousins went into the Rebel army and one into 
the Union army." 
He further says: 

" John S. Williams (who became a Confederate general) was 
living in Illinois when the war came on. His older brother 
Richard was living in Texas. Their father, General Sam 
Williams, two of whose brothers married sisters of my mother, 
was a strong Union man. His third son. Clay, went into 
the Union army, John S, went into the Rebel army. His 
brother Richard made his way under difficulties, from Texas, 
and entered the Union service. Two sons of an uncle of 
John S. Williams were officers in my regiment. His other son 
was a strong Unionist, as was the father, and as was the 
other brother who married my aunt.*' 

He further says : 

" When my regiment, the 4th Kentucky Infantry, was be- 
fore Mission Ridge, it was in full view of the 4th Kentucky 
Rebel Infantry, in which were two brothers of two men of my 
regiment. This sort of division was common." 

This division was so common it is well understood by 
all intelligent people in Kentucky. The Breckinridge 
family was divided ; also, the Marshalls, the Buckners, 
the Bufords, the Crittendens, the Clays, the Hansons, 
and many others. Where there was no division, it was 
because all were Union, and the divisions generally were 
in the same proportion as that of the sentiment of the 
State. 

The city of Louisville was the metropolis of the State. 
In the war time its population was 60,000. At that 
time the railroad had not superseded the river as a means 



Location of Union Sentiment 163 

of transportation, and the southern trade was largely- 
carried on by steamboat. Along the turnpike roads which 
led to Louisville the produce of the country was hauled 
in wagons or driven on foot, and the outlet of trade was 
down the river.. Business connections with the South 
centred in Louisville. Its citizens were slaveholders, 
and long intercourse with the Southern country had 
established many social ties and relations. But Louis- 
ville was a Union stronghold. It is surprising, when the 
facts are considered, with what almost unanimity this 
Southern city adhered to the Union and repudiated 
secession. The sentiment of her people was shown both 
by voting and by the enlistment of soldiers. 

On the 6th day of May, 1861, an election took place 
for mayor. Two candidates were in the field — John 

M. Delph, the Union candidate, and Devan, the 

Southern Rights candidate. The only issue was union or 
secession. The total vote cast in the city was 6393. Of 
these Delph received 4822, and Devan 1571. 

The August election in Kentucky took place two 
weeks after the battle of Bull Run. The war was fully 
inaugurated at that time, but there were no soldiers 
in Kentucky. Therefore it cannot be said that elections 
were interfered with by the military authorities. The 
election in August was as fair and free as the one in May, 
or any other ever held in the State in any year prior to 
the war or since. 

It has been already shown that at this election the 
Union candidates were elected all over the State, and the 
total majority in the State was nearly 6o,0(X). This 
enormous majority can not be fully appreciated without 
recalling that the total vote of the State was less 
than 150,000, as shown by the vote for President in 
i860. At this August election of 1861 the voting 
in the city ot Louisville is shown by the following 
table : 



1 64 Union Cause in Kentucky 

For James Speed, Union candidate for State Senate . . 4788 

For his opponent, Jefferson Brown 605 

For A. B. Semple, Union candidate for State Senate. . 4615 

For his opponent, Gamble 902 

For the lower House, Beeman, Union 2 141 

His opponent, Brinly 63 

Nat Wolfe, Union 1680 

His opponent, James Rudd 321 

W. P. Boone, Union 1990 

His opponent, Joyce 351 

Joshua Tevis, Union 958 

His opponent, Johnston 305 

There is but one conclusion: the city of Louisville 
was overwhelmingly for the Union. The people of all 
classes, wealthy, influential, business and professional, 
and laboring men, seemed to be animated by the same 
spirit, that of devotion to the Union. Under no other 
circumstances could there possibly have been such a show- 
ing at the polls. 

The sentiment of the people was manifested in many 
ways. Both boards of the City Council were almost 
unanimously Union. This was shown in April, 1861, 
when a resolution was offered to the effect that the true 
position of Kentucky was with the South, which resolu- 
tion received but two voles. In the same month $50,000 
was appropriated for the defence of the city. In May the 
mayor reported the names of eighteen companies which 
had been organized for the city's defence. These com- 
panies were formed in April and May, and it will be seen 
that they did actual and effective service in resisting the 
advance of Confederate forces in the ensuing fall. 

The organization of these companies was materially 
aided by an association, purely spontaneous, among the 
citizens, known as the "Union Club." This association 
was born of the necessities of the hour, and was extremely 
useful in acquainting the Union men with each other, and 



Location of Union Sentiment 165 

in steadying public sentiment. At first, men were uncer- 
tain how others stood. There was much angry and 
defiant talk, and the organization of the Knigh^'.s of 
the Golden Circle emboldened the secessionists. The 
"Union Club" then naturally came into existence. The 
beginning was small, but it rapidly grew until more than 
6000 were enrolled. The questions asked of those who 
were recommended for membership were very significant: 

Are you opposed to secession or disunion? 

Do you acknowledge your highest allegiance is due to 
the United States? 

Do you pledge yourself to resist all attempts to over- 
throw the government of the United States? 

Do you pledge your aid and sympathy in suppressing 
the present rebellion? 

An oath was then taken to defend the government of 
the United States. 

The initiated were then admonished to do all in their 
power to maintain the Union, enjoining them to re- 
member the words of our own immortal Clay: 

"If Kentucky to-morrow unfurls the banner of resist- 
ance I will never fight under that banner. I owe a para- 
mount allegiance to the whole Union, — a subordinate 
one to my own State." ' 

The military companies which were formed were 
regularly organized as the Louisville Home Guard. The 
first commander was Lovell H. Rousseau. He resigned 
on the loth of July in order to organize troops at Camp 
Joe Holt, across the river. His successor was James 
Speed, afterwards United States Attorney-General in 
Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet. He served until September 2d, 
when he took his seat in the State Senate. He was 
succeeded by Hon. Hamilton Pope. From the beginning, 
the Major of the organization was John W. Barr, late 
United States Judge, Kentucky District, who also acted 
' See Appendix, § 13, p. 348. 



i66 Union Cause in Kentucky 

as Adjutant. The active service of this body of men was 
soon required. On the 17th of September the Confede- 
rates who had come into the State made their way up the 
Louisville and Nashville Railroad, and Louisville was 
threatened. Major Anderson was in Louisville, but no 
troops. He applied to General Hamilton Pope, who told 
him he could summon fifteen hundred men at the sound 
of the fire bell. This was done. The whole body volun- 
teered to advance to Muldraugh Hill. Just at that time 
General Sherman arrived in the city. He went out with 
the Home Guards. At the depot they were joined by 
General Rousseau, who brought 2000 men from Camp Joe 
Holt. Thus Louisville was defended by Louisville men, 
in number more than three thousand. 

It is due to these early defenders of Louisville to record 
the names of the companies and their officers: 

The Calhoun Artillery, Captain Calhoun ; Anderson 
Guards, Captain Theodore Harris, and Lieutenants W. F. 
Wood and A. N. Keigivin; Gill Rifles, Captain Ed. St. 
John, Lieutenants Jno. F. Ditsler, J. C. Russell; Tomp- 
kins Zouaves, Captain Robert Miller, Lieutenants C. A. 
Gruber, C. A. Summerville; Avery Guards, Captain S. L. 
Adair, Lieutenant Peter Leaf; Battle Creek Guards, 
Captain B. F. Lutz, Lieutenant A. Lutz; Marion Rifles, 
Captain C. F. Duke, Lieutenants John Hughes, James 
Barbee; Louisville Guards, Captain Fred. Buckner, 
Lieutenant A. Ringwald ; Jefferson Guards, Captain J. 
F. Huber, Lieutenants D. W. Henderson, Ed Merkly; 
National Guards, Captain A. C. Semple, Lieutenants 
E.G. Wigginton, J. M. Semple; Prentice Guards, Captain 
El. Shepherd; Island Home Guards, Captain W. L. Tuell, 
Lieutenants M. M. Rhorer, A. J. Wells; Boone Guards, 
Captain Paul Byerly, Lieutenants James Fogarty, J.R. 
Boone; Halbert Zouaves, Captain W. H. Meglemery, 
Lieutenants H. J. Smith, A. Rush; Hamilton Guards, 
Captair F. M. Hughes, Lieutenants G. W. Conway, D. 



Location of Union Sentiment 167 

Abbott; Dent Guards, Captain Jesse Rubel, Lieutenants 
J. R. White, W. H. Fagan ; Sumpter Grays, Captain J. H. 
Bornom; Semple Battery, Captain J. B. Watkins; First 
Ward Guards, Major A. Y. Johnson, Captain J. D. 
Orvill, Lieutenant Ed. Young; Delph Guards, Captain 
John Daley, Lieutenant Thomas Tindall ; Captain Miller's 
Company, Captain Irwin Miller; Crittenden Union 
Zouaves, Captain John M. Harlan, now Justice U. S. 
Supreme Court; Villiar Guards, Captain Joseph Have- 
man, Lieutenant K. Weaver; Dupont Zouaves, Captain 
J. K. Noble, Lieutenant William Krull; East Louisville 
Guards, Captain David Hooker, Lieutenants William 
McNeal, John Collins; Thruston Guards, Captain Jesse 
Harmon, Lieutenants John Ewald, Fred Van Seggern; 
Franklin Guards, Captain William Elwang, Lieutenants 
P. Emge, H, Canning; Second Ward Rangers, Lieu- 
tenants Charles Summers, E. D. Prewitt. Many of these 
men entered the service regularly. 

The city of Louisville and immediate vicinity furnished 
the principal part of seven regiments for the Union 
cause : 

The Fifth Kentucky Infantry, officered by Lovell H. 
Rousseau, H. M. Buckley, W, W. Berry, Charles H. 
Thomasson and others; 

The Sixth Kentucky Infantry, officered by Walter C. 
Whittaker, George T. Shackelford, George T. Cotton, 
and others; 

The Fifteenth Kentucky Infantry, officered by Curran 
Pope, James B. Forman, Marion C. Taylor, George P. 
Jouett, Noah Cartwright, William P.Campbell, and others; 

The Twenty-eighth Kentucky Infantry, officered by 
William P. Boone, J. Rowan Boone, A. Y. Johnson, John 
Gault, and others; 

The Thirty-fourth Kentucky Infantry, officered by 
Henry Dent, Selby Harney, W. Y. Dillard, Joseph B. 
Watkins, and others; 



1 68 Union Cause in Kentucky 

The Second Kentucky Cavalry, officered by Buckner 
Board, Thomas P. Nicholas, Thomas B. Cochran, Elijah 
S. Watts, W. H. Eifort, Owen Starr, and others; 

The Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, officered by Jesse 
Bayles, Green Clay Smith, Wickliffe Cooper, Jacob 
Ruckstuhl, and others. 

While all comprising these regiments were not from 
Louisville, yet many Louisville men were in other regi- 
ments, thus making a fair offset. 

The city government was so decidedly in favor of the 
Union as to attract mention in the Eastern papers. Its 
expressions were numerous and unequivocal. In July it 
took steps to prevent persons from inducing minors to go 
off to the Confederacy. In August it passed a resolution 
congratulating Colonel W, E. Woodruff of the Second 
Kentucky Infantry upon his exchange, he having been 
taken prisoner in Virginia, welcoming him back and 
rejoicing that he could further defend the cause of the 
Union. At the same time it appropriated $200,000 to 
be used in encouraging volunteers. When it was an- 
nounced that General Robert Anderson would come to 
Louisville the Council voted to welcome him and give him 
the hospitalities of the city. In November it adopted unan- 
imously a testimonial to Lieutenant-Colonel William P. 
Campbell, who had left the Council to serve in Colonel 
Curran Pope's Fifteenth Kentucky Infantry, saying 
"that while the city has lost an able and efficient legisla- 
tor, our country has gained the service of a true soldier, 
and loyal and devoted man, whose voice and right arm 
will ever be raised in defence of American liberty and the 
preservation of our glorious Union." 

In January, 1862, a similar resolution was adopted as to 
Colonel A. Y. Johnson, who left the city for service in 
the field, "in which he can render more valuable service 
to his country." 

The two leading newspapers of Louisville, the Journal, 



Location of Union Sentiment 169 

George D. Prentice, editor, and the Democrat^ John H. 
Harney, editor, warmly espoused the cause of the Union. 
As the files are now examined, they are found to con- 
tain strong and earnest editorial matter and communica- 
tions from the chief men of the State, as well as stirring 
speeches, all urging the duty of supporting the Union 
against the effort to dismember it. 

In these papers is mention of incidents and occurrences 
which show the enthusiasm of the city of Louisville for 
the Union cause. All through the spring and summer 
the patriotic citizens showed their faith by raising the 
national flag. Every day there were notices of flag 
raisings in different parts of the city, at which speeches 
were made by the leading citizens. So numerously were 
the National colors displayed, waving from lofty poles or 
suspended across the streets, the Louisville Democrat said 
Louisville had become as the "City of Flags." 

In fact, the city was ablaze with Union sentiment. As 
the regiments of troops passed through the streets on their 
way to the front it came to be a custom for refreshments 
to be served to them, and in the loyal households the 
patriotic women had provided plates and cups for the 
purpose of serving provisions and coffee prepared for the 
passing soldiers. 

Organizations were made for attending hospitals to care 
for the sick and wounded. Fairs were held to raise 
money. Committees were active everywhere, for the task 
grew to be one of immense magnitude. The citizens who 
could not serve in the field, and the true-hearted women, 
all through the war, nobly upheld the reputation of the 
city as a stronghold of the Union cause in Kentucky. 

Although the extreme west end of the State gave a 
majority at the polls for the Southern cause, many 
volunteered from that section and went into the organiza- 
tions formed elsewhere. R. K. Williams, Thomas B. 
Waller, and Colonel A. P. Henry raised troops in the 



I70 Union Cause in Kentucky 

western counties, some of which were incorporated in the 
Twentieth Kentucky Infantry, and other regiments. It 
would be difficult, nor would it be in accordance with the 
plan of this book, to locate all the volunteers from this or 
any other district. It will suffice to say that the 6000 
voters of the first district were represented in the field 
by their full share of volunteers. 

The second Congressional district, which adjoins the 
first, and was composed of counties from the Ohio River 
to the Tennessee line, was decidedly Union in sentiment. 
It elected James S. Jackson, of Hopkinsville, to Congress 
in June, 1861, he receiving 9271 votes, and his opponent 
3368. _ _ 

Enlisting in this district was in accordance with the 
voting. It has been already shown that many regiments 
were recruited in this part of the State. Among the 
notably Union counties of the district were Christian, 
Hopkins, McLean, Muhlenburg, and Ohio. The county 
of Christian particularly calls for special mention as a 
Union stronghold. It was said to be the second largest 
slave-holding county in the State. Its land was fertile 
and its people wealthy. It bordered on the Tennessee 
line, and might have been supposed to have Southern 
sentiment. But such was not the case. Its county-seat 
was the fine old town of Hopkinsville, located in sound 
of the cannon at Camp Boone in Tennessee, and within 
hearing of the roar of the guns at Donelson. It was the 
home of James S. Jackson, who resigned his seat in Con- 
gress in August, 1861, to raise troops to suppress the 
rebellion. His call as published was that he would raise 
a cavalry regiment for three years or during the war, to 
consist of ten companies: "none but active, vigorous men 
and men of steady habits will be received. I intend to 
make this regiment in all respects equal to the best 
drilled and disciplined corps in the regular army." Many 
of his recruits were from Christian County, and the regi- 



Location of Union Sentiment 171 

ment fulfilled the promise. At first under Colonel Jack- 
son and afterwards under Colonel E. H. Murray, it did 
service with the great armies in all the great campaigns of 
the West, and wound up its career at the close of the war 
in the State of North Carolina, where it had gone through 
to the sea with Sherman's army. 

Hopkinsville was noted for its large number of strong 
Union men, whose influence had much to do with the 
remarkable Union sentiment which prevailed in that part 
of the State. Among them was Colonel James F. Buck- 
ner, who, as has been related, raised a regiment in the 
summer of 1861, but which was dispersed before it was 
armed, the men making their way to Calhoun, on Green 
River, where they entered other organizations. General 
Jackson has been mentioned. It was also the home of 
General Benjamin H. Bristow, who, in the summer of 
1861, in conjunction with Colonel (afterwards General) 
James S. Shackelford, raised the Twenty-fifth Kentucky 
Infantry, and led it at Fort Donelson and on the field of 
Shiloh, and afterward assisted in raising the Eighth 
Kentucky Cavalry, which he led in the pursuit of Morgan, 
and who, after the war, attained national distinction as 
Secretary of the Treasury. Also may be mentioned Colo- 
nel Sam M. Starling, who served on the staff of General 
Crittenden and also with the Eighth Kentucky Cavalry; 
also. Colonel Edmund Starling, who raised and led the 
Thirty-fifth Kentucky Mounted Infantry; also. Major 
John Breathitt, Captains William T. Buckner, and John 
Feland, of the Third Kentucky Cavalry ; also Lewis Buck- 
ner, Walter Evans, D. M. Claggett, William A. Sasseen, 
Ned Campbell, Fielding M. Starling, William Poindexter, 
all of whom were officers in Kentucky regiments. 

Among the prominent citizens who were strong 
Unionists were A. V. Long, Gabriel Long, William 
Starling, Newton Payne, B. T. Underwood, Joab Clark, 
Dr. D. J. Gish, Dr. A. B. Weber, Davenport, 



172 Union Cause in Kentucky 

General D. S. Hays, E. S. Edmunds, Ben S. Camp- 
bell, Elder Enos Campbell, Judge H. R. Littell, Colonel 
C. M. Collins, Rev. H. V. D. Nevius, Dr. E. R. Cook, 
J. I. Landis, all ot whom were men of the first order in 
the community where they lived. 

The Union soldiers who were at any time located for 
a time at this fine old Kentucky town cherished ever after- 
wards the recollection of the cordial reception they 
received and the abundant hospitality and delightful 
entertainment extended to them. The writer's own 
experience enables him to testify, and to repeat the testi- 
mony of others, that, for genuine, hearty, intelligent, and 
abiding loyalty to the Union cause, Hopkinsville was not 
surpassed by any town in the State. While there was 
some division of sentiment, devotion to the Union was 
most decidedly the prevailing feeling of the town as well 
as of the adjacent country. 

There was a similarity between the cities of Hopkins- 
ville and Bowling Green in respect to Union sentiment; 
and while it is a record fact that General Albert Sidney 
Johnston reported Bowling Green to be a Union centre, 
so it is a fact that when the Confederates first entered 
Kentucky, and were established at Hopkinsville, the 
officers expressed their surprise to find a Union sentiment 
prevalent among the people, saying they had come to 
Kentucky because they had understood the people were 
with the South. This expression corresponds with the 
words of General Bragg in his report after his invasion of 
Kentucky in 1862: "The campaign here was predicated 
on the belief and the most positive assurances that the 
people of this country would rise to assert their 
independence." 

Nor did General Albert Sidney Johnston have any 
different experience when he reacned Bowling Green. 
On the 22d of October, 1861, he wrote to the Confederate 
authorities at Richmond as follows: 



Location of Union Sentiment 173 

"We have received but little accession to our ranks since 
the Confederate forces crossed the line [i.e., the line dividing 
Tennessee and Kentucky]. In fact, no such demonstrations 
of enthusiasm as to justify any movement not warranted by 
our ability to maintain our own communication. It is true 
that I am writing from a Union county, and it is said to be 
different in other counties. They appear to me to be passive 
if not apathetic. There are hundreds of ardent friends of the 
South in the State, but there is apparently among them no 
concert of action. I shall, however, still hope that the love 
and spirit of liberty are not yet extinct in Kentucky." {Zz/e 
of Albert S. Johnston, by Wm. P. Johnston, p. 351.) 

Bowling Green was a Union centre. It is the principal 
city in the "Green River country." 

Green River takes its rise in the country southeast- 
wardly of Lebanon, in the counties of Lincoln, Casey, and 
Adair, and flows westwardly through the State, entering 
the Ohio near Henderson. The upper half of its course 
is some thirty miles south of the escarpment known as 
the "Muldraugh Hill Range." With its principal trib- 
utary, the Big Barren, this stream drains the counties of 
Casey, Adair, Metcalfe, Barren, Warren, Green, Larue, 
Hart, Edmondson, Grayson, Butler, Ohio, Muhlenburg, 
McLean, and parts of others. 

All of these counties were Union in sentiment. They 
constituted, to a large extent, the third and fourth 
Congressional districts, and at the Congressional election 
in June, 1861, the third district gave to the Union candi- 
date, Henry Grider, 10,392 votes, and to his opponent, 
Joseph H. Lewis, 31 13, making a Union majority of 
7279, or more than three to one. At the same election 
in the fourth district the Union candidate, Aaron Hard- 
ing, received 10,344 votes, and his opponent, A. G. 
Talbott, 2469 — a majority of 7875, or nearly five to one. 

The Green River country furnished soldiers to the 
LTnion cause commensurate with its vote. Many went 



174 Union Cause in Kentucky 

into the Third, Eighth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, 
Seventeenth Cavalry, and the Ninth, Eleventh, Seven- 
teenth, Twenty-fifth, Twenty-sixth, Twenty-seventh, 
Thirty-fifth, Thirty-seventh, Forty-eighth, Fifty-second 
Infantry, besides other regiments. 

Greensburg was second only to Camp Dick Robinson 
in point of time for early recruiting in Kentucky. The 
Union leaders of this section of the State were all men 
of unusual ability. General W. T. Ward had served in 
the Mexican War, as major, and General E. H. Hobson 
as a lieutenant. Aaron Harding was an eminent and 
widely known lawyer. Colonel Frank Wolford became a 
noted cavalry officer. Colonel George T, Wood of 
Manfordville was not less distinguished as a citizen than 
his son, Major-General Thomas J. Wood, as a soldier. 
Hon. A. G. Hobson of Bowling Green was of the same 
honored family as General E. H. Hobson and Colonel 
William E. Hobson, and all powerfully upheld the Union 
cause. Bowling Green has been mentioned as a Union 
centre. The leaders of public sentiment were numerous 
at that point — the Underwoods, Griders, Lovings, 
Hawkins, Mottley, and others. 

Associated with General Ward at Greensburg were his 
gallant sons, Colonel John H. Ward and Major E. W. 
Ward. In Adair were Judges Zachariah Wheat and T. 
T. Alexander, and among the soldiers were J. R. Hind- 
man, J. T. Bramlette, F. C. Winfrey, and A. J. Bailey. 
In addition to those already named from Hart may be 
mentioned Dr. William Adair, Dr. C. J. Walton, Colonel 
William B. Craddock, and from Casey, Colonel Silas 
Adams, Majors L. M. Drye and George W. Drye. Other 
leading soldiers and citizens of the Green River section 
were William Lewis of Green, Colonels Cicero Maxwell, 
S. P. Love, J. W. Weatherford, J. R. Wheat, Thomas 
Z. Morrow, Hartwell T. Burge, Q. C. Shanks, J. B. 
Carlisle, W. B. Carlisle, James Carlisle, Captains Ander- 



Location of Union Sentiment 175 

son Gray, W. N. Vaughn, and Hons. Larkin J. Proctor 
of Brownsville, and Wade Veluzette of Metcalf County. 

It has been stated in another part of this work that in 
the early organization of Union troops in Kentucky the 
camp guards of the forming regiments were the outposts 
of the Federal forces. In no section was this more strik- 
ing than in the Green River section. The camp at Cal- 
houn, where General Thomas L. Crittenden commanded, 
was the rallying-point for the lower waters, as Columbia 
and Greensburg were for the upper. All were places of 
utmost importance in the first stages of the war. In 
November, 1861, General Sherman at Louisville reported 
that "Colonels Grider and Haggard are at Columbia and 
are acquainted with all the country as far as Bowling 
Green." 

The Twenty-seventh and Thirteenth and a portion 
of the Twenty-first Kentucky Infantry were recruited 
at Greensburg, while the Confederates occupied Mun- 
fordville in the adjoining county, only twenty-four 
miles distant. General Ward, who was organizing at 
Greensburg, lost men in killed, wounded, and prisoners 
before he had an armed company in camp. Many of 
his recruits came from within the Confederate lines. 
They had only their own arms, rifles, or shotguns, 
and it was an event when Lieutenant-Colonel Wheat 
came with a company armed with some of the cele- 
brated "Lincoln guns" which had found their way 
that far out in the State. It would be interesting, if 
space permitted, to recount in detail the experiences of 
these volunteers rallying to the camps to contribute the 
splendid regiments which have been mentioned and 
which served until the end of the war. 

In an account of his regiment, the Twenty -seventh 
Kentucky Infantry, Colonel John H. Ward says: 

" Many of our recruits came from inside the rebel lines and 



i;^ Union Cause in Kentucky 

had to fight on the way to the camp. We had no arms except 
our private ones, and a few Home Guard muskets. We had 
no countenance from the State authorities, as the Governor* 
Magoffin, was in sympathy with the South, and no money ex- 
cept what we furnished from our own means; we had no quarter- 
master nor commissary stores except what we gathered from 
the country, and for which we gave receipts to the people. I 
do not see how troops could have greater difficulties to 
encounter." 

Munfordville is situated at the crossing of Green River by 
the Louisvlle & Nashville Railroad. This place is noted 
for the surrender of about 4000 Federal troops to General 
Bragg when he invaded Kentucky in 1862. It is also 
noted as the native place of two Kentucky ofificers who 
were distinguished on opposite sides in the Civil War, 
General Simon Bolivar Buckner and General Thomas J. 
Wood. Both were West Point graduates, both served 
in the Mexican War, and both are still living. General 
Buckner has been Governor of Kentucky since the Civil 
War, and also candidate for the Vice-Presidency of the 
United States. After a long career in public life he now 
resides at the place of his birth, near Munfordville, at his 
delightful ancestral country-seat known as "Glen Lily." 
His name to-day stands first among Kentuckians, resident 
in the State, and by none is he more honored than by 
those who were Unionists in the great struggle. 

General Thomas J. Wood is now a resident of the State 
of Ohio. His career was no less noted than that of the 
playmate of his boyhood. He had honorable service in 
the regular army before the war. In the great struggle 
he rose to the rank of major-general of volunteers, and 
afterward he held the rank of brigadier-general in the 
regular service. As a divison and corps commander he 
was conspicuous in all the campaigns in the western 
theatre of the war and fought in scores of engagements, 
notably Shiloh, Murfreesborough, Chickamauga, Mission 



Location of Union Sentiment 177 

Ridge, the battles of the Atlanta campaign, Franklin, and 
Nashville. 

A full account of the Green River country, detailing 
especially the part the people took in the Civil War 
would make a most interesting monograph. 

Beyond the divide between the head waters of Green 
River and the Cumberland River lay the counties of 
Pulaski, Whitley, Wayne, Russell, Clinton, and Cumber- 
land. Although four of these counties were on the 
Tennessee line they were all Union in sentiment and 
furnished many excellent Union officers. It is not 
possible in the limits of this book to mention all 
the officers from the different counties, but Colonels 
David R. Haggard and M. J. Owsley from Cumberland 
cannot be omitted, nor the Van Winkles and Tuttles 
from Wayne, nor Governor Thomas E. Bramlette of 
Clinton. 

From what has been said it appears that instead of 
Union sentiment being confined to sections of the State 
along the Ohio River, as some have affirmed simply as a 
surmise, it extended through and through the State and 
notably along the waters of Green River and along the 
Tennessee border. 

A glance at the map of Kentucky will show that 
Garrard County is about in the very centre of the State. 
It was in this county that Camp Dick Robinson was 
located. It adjoins Lincoln County, in which is the old 
town of Crab Orchard. This central portion of the State 
is interesting from the fact that the old Wilderness Road, 
laid out by Daniel Boone, from Cumberland Gap to the 
"level lands" of Kentucky, first reached the "level lands" 
in the neighborhood of Crab Orchard. The counties 
adjacent to it are the southern counties of the Blue Grass 
region. Spreading out northwardly from this central 
point lies the rich Blue Grass, but southeastwardly, the 
hill country and mountains are soon reached. 
12 



178 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Tributary to Camp Dick Robinson and Camp Nelson, 
which was established near by, were the strong Union 
counties lying, north, south, east, and west. No more 
adm'rable selection could have been made for the first 
military post of Kentucky. It was central as to power- 
ful Union sentiment. It commanded the natural way of 
entering the State from the direction of eastern Tennes- 
see. It was in this direction that General Zollicoffer 
marched in January, 1862, and from this section General 
Thomas gathered the troops which met the advance at 
Mill Spring, 

Another interesting Union centre was the Maysville 
district. Chief among the Unionists at this point was 
Hon. William Henry Wadsworth. Associated with him 
was Colonel Thomas M. Green, editor of the Maysville 
paper, and many other earnest Unionists. This Con- 
gressional district, a large part of which is in the Blue 
Grass section, voted 12,230 for Wadsworth for Congress 
in June, 1861, against 3720 for his opponent, John S. 
Williams, who became a Confederate general. As the 
district voted, so it furnished troops. Colonel Wadsworth 
mentioned in a report made October 29, 1862, that his 
district had furnished seven regiments to the Union cause 
up to that date. {W. R., series i, vol. 16, pt. i, p. 
1 146.) 

It was from this section that movements were made to 
repel incursions into Kentucky out of Virginia, by way 
of Pound Gap principally. The counties both up and 
down the river from Maysville, and extending into the 
State, were strongly Union. In the Big Sandy country 
there was a lively Union sentiment, and by rallying and 
keeping together such troops as were not ordered to the 
front, in conjunction with the Home Guards, the strug- 
gle was made to defend this part of the State from the 
ravages of a persistent and determined set of reckless 
enemies. 



Location of Union Sentiment 179 

But it would be no easy task to determine in what 
part of Kentucky Union sentiment most prevailed, or 
which section was pre-eminent in furnishing troops to the 
cause of the Union. Excepting the counties at the 
extreme west end, the entire State was Union in senti- 
ment, and the volunteers were from the Blue Grass, the 
Green River country, along the Ohio, and from the 
mountains. Notwithstanding the historian Shaler's re- 
mark that they came from the thinner soils, while the 
Confederates were from the richer soils, the truth about 
them is well expressed in what Colonel Ed. Porter Thomp- 
son says about the First Kentucky Brigade (Confederate), 
that they represented Kentucky as a whole, not any 
particular class of its citizens ; that they were from the 
Ohio to the Tennessee line, and from the Big Sandy to 
the Mississippi — from the Blue Grass section and all 
other sections. 



T 



CHAPTER XII 

FORCE AGAINST FORCE 

HE following passage from Shaler's History of 
Kentucky is very suggestive : 



" It is maintained by many Confederate sympathizers that the 
violation of the State's neutrality came first from the Federal 
authorities. They cite the recruiting at Camp Dick Robinson 
as evidence in proof of their assertion. It is hardly worth 
while to debate this question of precedence when the action 
of both sides was so nearly simultaneous, and only accom- 
plished the inevitable overthrow of the neutrality of the 
Commonwealth ; still, after a careful review of all the records, 
the present writer has been driven to the conclusion that the 
actual infringement of the neutrality proclamation was due to 
the action of Polk and Zollicoffer, and that this simultaneous 
invasion of the State at points some hundreds of miles apart 
was deliberately planned by the Confederate authorities." 

This statement from an author who usually makes it 
appear that the acts of the Kentucky Unionists were 
wrong, suggests inquiry. What are the grounds for say- 
ing the invasion of Kentucky was deliberately planned? 

One of the most remarkable men who ever lived in 
Kentucky was Robert J. Breckinridge, D.D. His great 
abilities were enlisted on the Union side. His home was 
at Danville, in the central part of the State, not far from 
Camp Dick Robinson. He had abundant opportunity 
for information, for he was in the counsels of the leaders 
of the Union cause, and one of the prime leaders himself. 
His prominence was such that he was offered, but 

1 80 



Force against Force i8i 

declined, the nomination for Vice-President in 1864, on 
the ticket with Abraham Lincoln. 

In June, 1862, he published, in the T) any 'iWq Review, an 
account of what he called "The Secession Conspiracy in 
Kentucky and its Overthrow." What he details confirms 
the conclusion reached by Shaler that the "simultaneous 
invasion of the State at points some hundreds of miles 
apart was deliberately planned by the Confederate 
authorities." 

It would require strong and abundant proof to con- 
tradict the narrative of Dr. Breckinridge. It bears upon 
its face the evidences of truth, and no one could be 
named better able to present the facts of August and 
September in Kentucky than Dr. Breckinridge. The 
substance of his narrative is here given, and if any one 
should be disposed to question his accuracy as to the 
conduct of the secession leaders, his account of what was 
done by the Union leaders with whom he was associated 
can hardly be questioned, and the principal object of the 
present writer is to show the services rendered by the 
Union leaders of Kentucky in that period, both to their 
State and to their country. Dr. Breckinridge relates that 
after the election of August 5, 1861, which resulted in a 
complete triumph for the Unionists, electing three fourths 
of the members of the Legislature, on August 17th a 
meeting of secessionist leaders was held in Scott County at 
which three plans were propounded, taking it for granted 

"that the nation was broken up, and the government at 
an end; that the Confederate government was in full and law- 
ful existence; that Kentucky rightfully belonged to the Con- 
federate States, and that her obstinate refusal to take her 
proper place among those States imposed upon the Confed- 
erate government the necessity of forcing lier to do so, and 
upon the secession party in the State the duty of taking part 
in her conquest." 

The three plans were as follows: 



1 82 Union Cause in Kentucky 

1st. That the armies of Polk and ZolHcoffer and the 
troops along the Tennessee line should simultaneously 
invade the State, and that there should be a simultaneous 
rising of the secessionists in the State. 

2d. That Governor Magoffin should issue his proclama- 
tion, calling upon all true secessionists to rise; that the 
secession members of the Legislature should be required 
to convene, and by them the State should be put into the 
Confederacy. 

3d. That Governor Magoffin should demand of Presi- 
dent Lincoln the removal of the men at Camp Dick 
Robinson. 

The third of these plans was adopted at the meeting, 
"which involved a little further delay," and pursuant 
thereto Governor Magoffin requested the removal of the 
men at Camp Dick Robinson. This failed. But at the 
same time Governor Magoffin sent special messengers 
also to President Davis. "The real object of this," 
says Dr. Breckinridge, "is sufficiently explained by the 
events which followed": the invasion of General Polk at 
Columbus, and of General ZolHcoffer at the other end of 
the State; a few days later Bowling Green was occupied 
by General S. B. Buckner. The auxiliaries in the State 
were as follows: The State Guard, about 5000, and a 
secret band of Knights of the Golden Circle, about 8000. 
Besides this, the State of Tennessee stood pledged to 
support the conquest of Kentucky. 

Dr. Breckinridge says : 

" It well becomes the people of Kentucky to remember those 
who contrived for them such a destiny, and then carefully 
led them to it. To those few loyal men who knew precisely 
what was passing and what was coming, it was a spectacle at 
once touching and august to behold the calm and intrepid 
confidence of the people in themselves, under perils they did 
not understand, but knew to be immense, awaiting some way 
of assured deliverance which they would find or make. Deliv- 



Force against Force 183 

erance did come. The explosion of the conspiracy was 
delayed. The State was suddenly placed in a posture of de- 
fence; the vast preparations of the conspirators were foiled; 
everything disappeared but armies ranged for combat, and the 
attempt to subjugate Kentucky assumed the least dangerous of 
all aspects to her brave peope — the aspect of fair battle. 
At the moment of supreme peril the conspirators suddenly 
encountered a degree of spirit and courage superior to their 
own, and out of a condition apparently hopeless there sprung, 
as by a single effort, a combination of irresistible strength." 
Dr. Breckinridge then narrates how muskets were con- 
veyed through the State to the soldiers at Camp Dick 
Robinson, and mentions the organization of troops 
opposite Louisville in Camp Joe Holt, under General 
Rousseau. He then says that on August 29th, twelve days 
after the conference in Scott County, a conference was 
held at the headquarters of General Nelson at Camp Dick 
Robinson, at which he himself was present. It was 
known that a great demonstration of secessionists was to 
be made in Owen County on September 5th. This was 
regarded by those at the Nelson conference 

"as a part of a wide conspiracy, strictly military in its na- 
ture, intended to lead to immediate war as a part of a plan 
which involved a rising in the State, an invasion of it in force, 
and its conquest and occupancy by rebel forces as one of the 
main theatres of the war, and its incorporation with the Con- 
federate States." 

Corroboration of this is found in a letter from General 
Humphrey Marshall to Governor Magoflfin, dated Leba- 
non, Va., March 23, 1862, in which General Marshall 
reviews the deplorable events of the previous year. 

" You cannot fail to remember [says he,] the pertinacity 
with which I urged you not to call that extra session of the 
Legislature which stripped you of power and actually usurped 
your constitutional function of commander of the military 
force of the State; how, pointing out to you that the Federal 



1 84 Union Cause in Kentucky 

power meant to concentrate troops at Cairo, I advised you 
to occupy and fortify Paducah, Smithland, and Columbus 
before a single Federal regiment had marched to its ren- 
dezvous, then to secure the navigation of the Tennessee and 
Cumberland." 

As General Marshall was a conspicuous figure in the 
demonstration in Owen County, where he had organized 
troops, and as he was to speak at the "peace" meeting at 
Frankfort, this letter reviewing the past shows how early 
the secession leaders were counselling the forcible op- 
position to the will of the people of Kentucky. 

The characterization of the people of Kentucky by this 
distinguished man, because of their preference for the 
Union, is in every way remarkable : 

" Her sons are now the wonder of the rest of the Southern 
people. Their love of gold ; their inclination to barter every- 
thing else for the retention of property; their disinclination to 
resist plain usurpation of the inestimable rights, has already 
forfeited the name the State once bore, and has brought my 
own mind to ponder whether they are fit to be free." {JV. 
R., Series i, vol. lo, pt. 2, p. 468.) 

Hon. Garrett Davis said, in a speech in the United 
States Senate, that it was expected that 

" Humphrey Marshall was to make his incursion into Franklin 
county and storm the capital. Some members, especially 
secession members, of the Legislature, and some citizens of 
the town of Frankfort, and one or two judges of our Court of 
Appeals, left Frankfort hurriedly in the expectation that it 
was to be sacked that night by Humphrey Marshall's insurgent 
hosts." 

To defend against the uprising that was expected to 
occur about the first of September, 1861 (and it must be 
remembered that was the time the Confederates did, in 
fact, invade the State) it was ascertained that about 4000 
troops could be furnished from Camp Dick Robinson, 



Force against Force 185 

about 2000 from Camp Joe Holt, and about 4000 or 
5000 Home Guards could be concentrated. 

Dr. Breckinridge then says that it was agreed at the 
conference at Nelson's headquarters that 

"A special messenger, some member of the meeting, should 
be sent immediately to Governor Magoffin and warn him on 
behalf of General Nelson, and a responsible meeting of loyal 
citizens, that the plans and designs of the secession leaders, 
in connection with the Owen meeting, were understood; that 
any movement in force by armed men would be promptly 
met by force; and that the Governor would take notice that 
his being thus advertised beforehand was meant, among 
other things, to signify that he would be held personally 
responsible for whatever evil might happen through his neglect 
or connivance," 

This messenger to the Governor was to take an order 
from General Nelson to the commander of the Home 
Guards at Frankfort, that he must occupy the arsenal 
there with a sufficient force to hold it, relying on imme- 
diate assistance if opposed. If overpowered before relief 
came he was to spike the guns and blow up the arsenal. 

Messengers were to be sent to General Rousseau at 
Louisville and to the commanders of the Home Guards at 
Lexington, Louisville, and Covington, and steps should 
be taken to complete the preparation of all the loyal 
troops of the State. 

One of the men composing the conference was to go at 
once to the governors of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and 
notify them of the peril in Kentucky and invoke aid. 

On the second day of September the Legislature con- 
vened. On the next day General Polk entered the State. 
At the same time Zollicoffer came in through the moun- 
tains. On the 5th the demonstration took place in 
Owen County. 

"But," says Dr. Breckinridge, "success was no longer 
possible. The conspirators had been foiled. Wise and 



i86 Union Cause in Kentucky 

daring as they supposed themselves to be, they had been 
overmatched both in strategy and courage." 

Simultaneously, almost, with Polk's advance to Colum- 
bus, General Grant occupied Paducah. This checkmated 
that movement. The show of force by General Nelson 
quieted the allies in Kentucky, and afterwards when 
Zollicoffer's troops advanced they were met and turned 
back. 

Dr. Breckinridge relates that on the loth of September, 
five days after the demonstration in Owen County, the 
secession leaders held a "peace" meeting in Frankfort, 
and on the 20th another peace meeting at Lexington. 
He thus disposes of the Frankfort meeting: 

"Two gentlemen on the platform struggling for prece- 
dence in being heard, one suddenly drew out a large meer- 
schaum pipo, which, being mistaken for a revolver, conscience 
did the rest. Wild cries of danger, a confused struggle and 
a crash, a vehement and scandalous stampede, and the 'peace ' 
aspect of treason in Kentucky passed away." 

He then details what occurred at the Lexington meeting 
on the 20th. Just before the day it was to assemble the 
Legislature had adopted resolutions that the Confederate 
forces were to be driven from the State. 

Dr. Breckinridge says : 

" To a certain extent the secession demonstration was per- 
mitted to go forward, but it was even more fruitless than the 
great ovation in Owen on the 5th, or the great peace confer- 
ence at Frankfort on the loth. The idea of a sudden and 
triumphant rising in central Kentucky, of the seizure of the 
capital and the Legislative bodies, of the rapid and almost 
unopposed march of the three invading armies into the heart 
of the State, and of a grand eoup de main by General Bickly 
and his Knights of the Golden Circle, were no longer suitable 
to conspirators whose secret plans were seen to be penetrated 
and counteracted." 

He also says : 



Force against Force 187 

"General George H. Thomas had just relieved General 
Nelson in his command. At daylight on the 20th Colonel 
Bramlette, with his regiment of infantry, was found to have 
pitched his tents in the suburbs of Lexington during the pre- 
vious night. During the day Colonel Wolford's regiment of 
Kentucky cavalry came up. Towards evening a battery of 
artillery filed through the principal streets of the city on its 
way to Bramlette's camp. A body of local Home Guards in- 
creased the force to about two full regiments in all. No 
explanations were asked or offered on either side, for every one 
understood that a disloyal demonstration designed expressly 
as a menace was appointed for that day; every one understood 
that Colonel Bramlette's force was there on that account." 

Three days after this the Thirty-fifth Ohio Infantry ap- 
peared at the town of Cynthiana. About this same time 
it was confidently expected that the Confederates would 
reach Louisville, but that movement was frustrated by 
the prompt movement down the line of the Louisville & 
Nashville Railroad by the troops Rousseau had gathered 
at Camp Joe Holt, and by the Home Guards of Louisville, 
with whom went General W. T. Sherman. 

Dr. Breckinridge says: 

"The struggle of parties had been fierce, silent, cease- 
less, and deadly from the 17th of August to the 23d of 
September. The catastrophe came. Its immediate ef- 
fect was the great deliverance we have explained." 

It is interesting to note that in this deliverance, which 
was due mainly to the resolute stand of the Kentucky 
Unionists, there appeared upon the scene at the most 
critical points those three remarkable characters Grant, 
Sherman, Thomas. 

In the eventful month of September, 1861, there was 
no obstacle to the rally either to the standard of the 
Southern cause or to the National flag. All ideas of neu- 
trality went completely to the winds, and it was evident 
that nothing was in store for the future except force 



1 88 Union Cause in Kentucky 

against force. The Confederate armies were in Kentucky, 
along the southern border, from Columbus to Cumberland 
Gap. The ways were wide open for all who felt so in- 
clined to go out and join them. Nor was there any 
reason for the Unionists to hesitate to organize into 
regiments wherever they pleased. 

It has been stated that the August election of 1861 
was the time of all others for the secession element to 
show its strength at the polls. If that election would 
send a secession majority to the Legislature, the State 
would be controlled by them. So another turning point 
came in September. If, as was so loudly proclaimed, a 
majority of the Kentucky people were Southern in senti- 
ment, the hour had arrived for them to show it. If, as 
was so persistently asserted, the "unprincipled Union 
leaders" had deceived and deluded the people the 
opportunity was at hand for them to throw off the shac- 
kles and stand up for their freedom. Nothing was in the 
way of a wholesale rush to the Confederate camps at 
Columbus, Hopkinsville, Russellville, Bowling Green, and 
other points as far as Cumberland Gap. The histo- 
rian Shaler truthfully says that it was a valuable 
commentary on the assertion that Kentucky was at heart 
with the Confederacy, that with forces much above any 
that could oppose them, any advance of the Confederates 
beyond the Southern line was made with extreme 
caution. (P. 261.) 

It is too plain a proposition to require more than a 
brief suggestion that the Kentucky secessionists knew 
the people of the State were against them. There- 
fore, the comparatively few who did leave to take sides 
with the South did not immediately return in triumph 
with the armies with which they went to redeem their 
State from the "oppressor." 

Many assertions were made at the time, which have 
been often repeated since, which had no semblance of 



Force against Force 189 

foundation, and the contradiction lies in the facts of the 
time. The one just mentioned, that Kentucky was at 
heart with the South, is contradicted by the facts stated, 
and renders inexcusable the careless writing of historians. 
For instance, Shaler says that before the end of the 
month of September 40,000 of the natural fighting 
population of the State went off to the Confederacy. 
(P. 269.) On the preceding page he says nearly 20,000 
Union Kentuckians were enlisted and ready for the field, 
and with the newly raised regiments that had come in 
from the North, the Federal force in the State was 
about 40,000. Now, if 40,000 had gone to swell the 
Confederate armies at Columbus, Hopkinsville, Rusell- 
ville. Bowling Green, and other places, why did they not 
proceed at once to hold, occupy, and possess Kentucky, 
which such forces might easily have done? 

The truth is, the Confederates knew that no such 
number of Kentuckians then left the State, and the 
historian Z. F. Smith more correctly states the number 
at near 10,000 (p. 614), while the ofificial records make 
them still less. The Confederates also knew that the 
Kentucky Unionists were organizing with great activity, 
and that the numbers of Union troops were in proportion 
to the Confederates precisely like the voting strength 
shown at the polls.' 

Another of the oft-repeated assertions of the time was 
that the purpose of the Northern people was to overrun 
the South like barbarians and mistreat helpless women 
and children in every horrible way. Quotations from 
the lurid speeches on this subject are made in this work. 
Among others, Commissioner Hale, of Alabama, indulged 
in such language in his address to Governor Magoffin, and 
Governor Magoffin replied that he had not exaggerated 
the case. That such inflammatory utterances were not 
credited by anybody, even by those who made them, is 

' See Appendix, § 14, p. 349. 



190 Union Cause in Kentucky 

shown by a remark of Dr. Breckinridge in his article in 
the Danville Review: 

"It is a characteristic feature of the men and the 
times that, nearly without exception, such as had wives 
and children left them to the care of those whose country 
it was their object to conquer, and to the protection of 
the government they took up arms to subvert.*' 

If there had been any expectation of the terrible 
atrocities predicted by reckless speakers and writers, the 
natural feeling would have led those who went off to 
help the Southern cause to carry their loved ones with 
them, while the way was wide open to escape the awful 
fate that awaited them at home. Better a thousand times 
would it have been for them to endure hardships behind 
the Confederate lines, than to remain where the "brutes'* 
from the North could get at them. 

All the conduct of the time showed that the rush into 
the Confederacy was an experiment, based upon the 
known fact that the movement was against a beneficent 
government, and against a people so far removed from 
barbarians that the Kentucky Confederates left their 
loved ones behind in implicit trust. 

Another of the assertions of the times, when force 
began to be arrayed against force, and oft repeated after- 
wards, was that Kentucky was first betrayed and then 
seized by force, and thus held in the Union. In connec- 
tion with all this, "usurpation of power" and "despotic 
rule" were charged. But that the Union leaders who 
were guiding Kentucky affairs at that time could be guilty 
of betrayal of the interests of their State is too monstrous 
a proposition to be entertained a single moment. These 
leaders were well represented by the members of Con- 
gress then at Washington, and who were elected in 
June, 1861. They were John J. Crittenden, Charles 
A. Wickliffe, James S. Jackson, Henry Grider, Aaron 
Harding, George W. Dunlap, Robert Mallory, William 



Force against Force 191 

H. Wadsworth, John W. Menzies. At home were such 
men as James F. Robinson, James Speed, Garrett Davis, 
Joshua F. Bell, James Harlan, Archibald Dixon, James 
Guthrie, S. S. Nicholas, and many like them, together 
with the whole body of newly-elected Union members 
of the State Legislature. All charges against such men 
are contradicted by their own personal character. 

The other charges of usurpation, despotism, unwarranted 
arrests, and oppression of the people are well answered 
by the simple fact that war had been precipitated, and a 
time of force against force had come. It was not a time to 
sit down supinely and allow force on one side to work out 
its natural fruits, and not resist it by force on the other, 
and when the history of the period is considered, 
it appears that the Southern Confederacy, which was 
preferred by some Kentuckians, did not supinely submit 
to treason against it. It is found that it dealt with men 
inside its lines with a military rigor far surpassing in 
severity that of the United States. The array of force 
against force brought on conditions wholly different 
from conditions of peace.' 

Without intending to make this work cover in detail 
all the events of the war in Kentucky, which would, 
indeed, require many volumes, it will not be out of place 
to here mention briefly some of the first instances where 
force met force actually upon the battle-field. 

Through the months of October and November and 
December, 1861, the Confederates occupied their posi- 
tions along the southern border of Kentucky. Efforts 
to advance from Bowling Green to Louisville were 
successfully resisted, and the protection of this important 
place was due to the Kentucky Unionists who had 
organized as Home Guards in Louisville, and to the 
Kentuckians General Rousseau had gathered into Camp 
Joe Holt, opposite Louisville. The more westerly parts 
' See Appendix, § 15, p. 350. 



192 Union Cause in Kentucky 

of the State were protected by the fast forming Kentucky 
regiments at Camp Calhoun on Green River, about 
twenty-five miles south of Owensboro, where Colonel 
James S. Jackson, Colonel John H. McHenry, Colonel 
James M. Shackelford, Colonel P. B. Hawkins were 
organizing their regiments, and, all under command 
of General Thomas L. Crittenden, were guarding the 
country. 

In the eastern part of the State the Fourteenth, Six- 
teenth, Twenty-second and Twenty-fourth Kentucky 
regiments, under Colonels Laban T. Moore, Charles 
A. Marshall, D. W. Lindsey, and John S. Hurt, 
respectively, with other troops, successfully resisted 
all the advances into Kentucky from Virginia. In the 
middle-eastern section. General ZollicofTer, in October, 
moved as far into the State as London, where he 
attacked the Federals at Camp Wildcat, and after 
serious loss retreated. In this early engagement the 
First Kentucky Cavalry, Colonel Wolford, and the 
Seventh Kentucky Infantry, Colonel Garrard, were 
conspicuous. 

In January, 1862, General Zollicoffer began to move 
further into the State. General Thomas was at Lebanon, 
and went out with what forces he had to meet this 
advance. The encounter took place near Mill Springs, 
about ten miles south of Somerset. His command con- 
sisted of eleven regiments and two batteries. Four of 
these regiments were Kentuckians — the Fourth Infantry, 
led by Colonel Speed S. Fry; the Tenth Infantry, led by 
Colonel JohnM. Harlan; theTwelfthlnfantry, led by Colo- 
nel William A. Hoskins; the First Cavalry, led by Colonel 
Frank Wolford. His entire force numbered about 4000, 
and the strength of the enemy, under Generals Crittenden 
and Zollicoffer, was about the same. The Tenth Kentucky 
was not in the battle, being on detached duty when 
this battle opened. It reached the field just as the 



Force against Force 193 

battle closed, and joined in the pursuit of the fleeing 
Confederates. 

On the 19th of January the advancing Confederates first 
met Wolford's cavalry, which resisted the advance, and 
the Tenth Indiana came to his relief by order of General 
Manson. He also ordered up the Fourth Kentucky In- 
fantry, Colonel Fry. Fry rushed his men forward, and 
was at once in the midst of a severe battle. The opposing 
forces had approached so close to each other that Colonel 
Fry, in riding through the trees, encountered a Confeder- 
ate officer wearing a waterproof coat which so covered his 
uniform that Fry did not know he was a Confederate. 
This officer said to Fry, "We must not fire on our own 
men," and Fry replied, "Of course not." At that 
moment another rider appeared, who fired at Fry and 
wounded his horse. Fry then, seeing the situation, fired 
on the officer whom he had first met. The officer fell, 
and it proved to be Zollicoffer. At this time the Con- 
federates were getting upon the right flank of the Fourth 
Kentucky Infantry, and at this time also General Thomas 
appeared. He hurried the Tenth Indiana to the exposed 
flank. Another Confederate brigade then came up and 
theTwelfthKentucky Infantry was ordered into line, also 
two East Tennessee regiments and the batteries. The 
Federal line was held, and as the Confederates pressed 
the fight, the Ninth Ohio and Second Minnesota 
reached the field. The fighting was severe and per- 
sistent for a time, when a bayonet charge was made 
by the Ninth Ohio against the enemy's left. This 
caused a break and at once the whole line gave way. 
The Tenth Kentucky and Fourteenth Ohio arrived and 
joined in the pursuit. The retreat was rapid and dis- 
orderly. The Confederates abandoned their artillery 
and wagons, and hurriedly crossed to the other 
side of Cumberland River. In their abandoned 
camp, which was on the north side, they left ammuni- 



194 Union Cause in Kentucky 

tion, stores of all kinds, muskets, and several stands of 
colors. 

This decisive victory was won in part by the Union 
regiments of Kentucky, and if anything can be true, 
these Kentucky troops were defending their Union State 
against the persistent efforts of the secession party to 
occupy and control Kentucky, and to conquer her and 
attach her to the Confederacy, regardless of the vote of 
her citizens and their oft-expressed will. 

Yet we read the following comment on this battle in 
Jefferson Davis's History (vol. ii., p. 22): 

" The heart of even a noble enemy must be moved at 
the spectacle of citizens defending their homes with 
muskets of obsolete pattern and shotguns against an 
invader having all the modern improvements in arms." 

And this in face of the facts that there were four 
Kentucky regiments in the army of General Thomas, and 
no Kentuckian with the Confederate force except Gen- 
eral George B. Crittenden, its commander. 

The defeat of the Confederate advance under Zollicoffer 
was followed a month later by the fall of Fort Donelson, 
which led to the evacuation of Kentucky by the Con- 
federates at all points. They did not return in force until 
the following summer and fall, when Generals Bragg and 
Kirby Smith came in with another invasion for the 
"redemption" of Kentucky, and, as will be seen, for the 
purpose of getting supplies and also of enforcing the Con- 
federate conscription laws upon the people of the Union 
State of Kentucky. 

The battle of Mill Springs was the first of a series of 
important successes on the part of the Federal arms, and 
was especially significant to the Unionists of Kentucky. 
It lifted from them a great apprehension that the State 
was to be invaded, and brought hope and cheer in place 
of dread. 

In connection with this first serious engagement in 



Force against Force 195 

Kentucky the following narrative is deeply interesting. 
It was prepared by Justice John M. Harlan, with no 
thought of publication, but he has permitted its use in 
this work. 

He states that in September, 1861, he determined to 
enter the Union volunteer service; 

"In the prosecution of that purpose [says he] I set 
about raising a regiment of infantry. My headquarters were 
established at Lebanon, Kentucky, and from that point I went 
to several adjoining counties making speeches for the Union 
cause and inviting men to join my regiment. ... By Novem- 
ber, 1 86 1, I had succeeded in bringing into camp about a 
thousand men. The regiment was accepted by the State and 
was subsequently (November 21, 1861) mustered into the ser- 
vice of the United States. The names of my officers and men 
appear in the official report of Adjutant-General Lindsay of 
Kentucky. When commissioned as Colonel I was only twenty- 
eight years of age. William H. Hays (who, after the war, 
became United States District Judge at Louisville) was Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel; Gabriel C. Wharton became Major, and after 
the war United States District Attorney for Kentucky; Wil- 
liam J. Lisle was appointed Adjutant, and Rev. Richard C. 
Nash, a Baptist minister, was Chaplain. The service con- 
tained no more gallant men than those who composed my 
regiment, the Tenth Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. While the 
regiment was at Lebanon, other regiments of infantry were 
sent there to remain subject to orders. About that time, 
General George H. Thomas (who was then about forty-four 
years of age, and became one of the four great generals of the 
war on the Union side) came to Kentucky, under orders from 
Washington, and a division was formed, to the command of 
which he was assigned. In the same division was the Fourth 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, of which Speed S. Fry was 
Colonel, John T. Croxton was Lieutenant-Colonel, and P. B. 
Hunt was Major. In the same division was the Fourteenth 
Ohio Infantry, of which James B. Steedman was Colonel, 
George P. Este Lieutenant-Colonel, and 



19^ Union Cause in Kentucky- 
was Major; the Ninth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, of which 
Robert L. McCook was Colonel; and the Second Minnesota, of 
which H. P. Van Cleve was Colonel, George was Lieutenant- 
Colonel, and Wilkins Major; the Tenth Indiana Volunteer 

Infantry, of which M. D. Manson was Colonel, W. C. Kise was 

Lieutenant-Colonel, and Miller Major. There were 

other regiments in the division, but I do not now recall the 
names of their field officers. My associations were mainly with 
the regiments above named. 

"In December, 1861, General Thomas received orders to 
march his division to Mill Springs in Pulaski County, on the 
Cumberland. We commenced our march on the last day of 
that month and year, going by the way of Campbellsville and 
Columbia. It began raining when we left Lebanon, and 
rained almost continually every day for several weeks. It 
was understood at the time that a large body of rebel troops 
under General Zollicoffer were encamped on the Cumberland 
near Mill Springs, and an invasion of Kentucky by those 
troops was apprehended. Thomas with his troops was ex- 
pected to meet and drive them back. 

"The route to Mill Springs was over a dirt road, and the 
earth was so thoroughly soaked with rain that Thomas's troops 
could make only a few miles each day. The regimental 
wagons sank into the earth up to the hubs of the wheels, and 
had to be lifted out by the soldiers. There was not a day 
when I did not myself join in that work in order to encourage 
my men. All along the route we had to cut down trees and 
saplings and make what were called * corduroy ' roads, over 
which the wagons, when lifted out of the mud, .vould be 
placed by the soldiers. 

"Finally, the advance regiments of the division reached 
Logan's Field, three or four miles from the Cumberland River. 
I do not remember the precise date of their arrival, but I know 
that it was on a certain Friday night. The Fourteenth Ohio 
and the Tenth Kentucky were then ten miles in the rear on the 
march. That night, after our camp had been established, an 
order came from General Thomas, who was with his advance 
regiments, directing Colonel Steedman and myself to take our 



Force against Force 197 

respective regiments early the next morning, Saturday, and go 
off to the right to a certain point five or ten miles distant and 
capture a rebel forage train which was supposed to be in that 
part of the country. We performed this duty, and kept our 
regiments concealed all day, in the hope that the rebel train 
would pass near us. But no such train could be found, and 
it became certain that the information received by General 
Thomas was incorrect. At the close of the day we returned 
to our camp on the main road at about dark — that camp, as 
already stated, being ten miles in the rear of General 
Thomas's advance troops at Logan's Field. 

" The next morning, Steedman and myself prepared to re- 
sume our march and join the other regiments of our division, 
say about eight o'clock. Just as we were starting, a cavalry- 
man belonging to Wolford's Kentucky Cavalry regiment 
came galloping up, and brought an order that we must hurry 
to the front, as the rebels, under Zollicoffer, had, early in the 
morning, advanced on Thomas, and that a fierce battle was 
raging It was a magnificent sight to see how the boys strug- 
gled through mud and rain to reach the field of battle. The 
ground was so wet and muddy under them that their feet 
slipped at every step. I see now with great distinctness old 
Father Nash pushing along on foot with the boys. Equally 
earnest with him was a Catholic priest from Washington 
County, who had come with Catholic soldiers from that 
county. There were many Catholics in my regiment. 

"Well, we missed the battle, although we tried hard to be 
in it. When we reached the battle-field, the battle had 
ended, and the rebels had fallen back or retreated to their 
fortifications on the river. We went through the battle-field 
and saw many dead. It was a most harrowing sight to me. 
We passed right by the body of General Zollicoffer, which had 
been placed on a plank on the ground (no doubt by some 
Union officer or soldier). He had on a light-colored rubber 
overcoat. There was some dispute for a time as to who shot 
Zollicoffer. But it was clearly established that he was killed 
by a pistol-shot fired by Colonel Fry, Zollicoffer came upon 
the men of Fry's regiment in the belief that it was a Confed- 



198 Union Cause in Kentucky 

erate regiment. He was ordered by Fry to halt, and as he 
did not do so, Fry shot him. Fry did not know, when he 
shot, that he was firing at Zollicoffer. I had all this from 
Fry himself. 

"We did not halt at the battle-field, but moved on to join 
General Thomas who, with such of the Union troops as were 
in the fight, followed the Confederates to their fortifications 
on the Cumberland River. We caught up with General 
Thomas about five or six o'clock in the afternoon, and found 
the Union troops in front of the rebel fortifications, which 
appeared to be quite formidable. It turned out that if 
Thomas had, before dark, attacked the rebels in their fortifi- 
cations, he could have carried the day and perhaps captured 
all the fleeing rebels with their guns. But the General thought 
otherwise, and made up his mind to defer an assault until next 
morning, when all his troops would be on hand. 

"As soon as Colonel Steedman and myself joined the other 
troops, we reported to General Thomas. We informed him 
that our regiments regretted very much that the useless march 
of the day previous, in pursuit of a supposed rebel forage 
train, had prevented them from being in the battle. We 
asked that our regiments be given a chance in the proposed 
assault of the next morning. He acceded to our request, and 
directed us to put our regiments in the front, ahead of all the 
others, and at the break of day move forward and begin the 
fight. We so located our regiments, and passed the night 
without any lights or fires to indicate where our soldiers were. 
At dawn our men were aroused and formed in line, and they 
immediately moved forward to the rebel fortifications, looking 
every moment for the rebels to open fire upon us. But they 
did not fire, and we went into the fortifications ahead of all 
the other troops, without resistance, and found no rebels there. 
The rebels, it was ascertained, had quietly crossed the river 
in the night, on a steamboat they owned or had impressed into 
their service, and had fled south into east Tennessee. Early 
in the day I crossed the river with one or two others in a skiff, 
and went a mile or so down the main road on which the rebels 
had retreated, and took dinner at the house of a man by the 



Force against Force 199 

name of West. While at dinner word was brought that a flag 
of truce had appeared near by, and that the officer bringing it 
wished to confer with us, I went down to the road and met 
that officer. It was Lieutenant Ewing of Tennessee, who was 
on Zollicoffer's staff. His object was to obtain the body of 
General Zollicoffer. I informed him that it could not be 
done — that arrangements had been made to send the body 
through Louisville to Nashville for delivery to Zollicoffer's 
family. In a conversation with Ewing, I learned that the 
rebels, when they retired from the battle-field, were of opinion 
that the Union forces amounted to more than 10,000 men. 
But such was not the fact. The only Union regiments en- 
gaged in the fight were the Tenth Indiana, Fourth Kentucky, 
Ninth Ohio, Second Minnesota, a part of Colonel Hoskins's 
Kentucky infantry, and a company of Wolford's cavalry regi- 
ment, not exceeding 3000 men fit for duty. 

" The regiments composing Thomas's division camped in 
the rebel fortifications for a time after the battle ; how long I 
do not remember. Shortly afterwards the division was or- 
dered to Nashville, Tennessee. We went to Louisville, and 
thence by boat to Nashville. This was, 1 think, in February, 
1862. We camped at a beautiful place near Nashville." 



CHAPTER XIII 
"provisional government" 

THE month of November, 1861, witnessed a remark- 
able sequel to the refusal to be governed by the 
solemn stand which Kentucky had taken in the Union. 
The secessionists, instead of acquiescing in the determina- 
tion of the people declared at the polls, left the State, 
and in September returned with the armies of the Con- 
federacy. The same men whom the people had beaten 
at the June and August elections determined to rule the 
destinies of Kentucky anyhow, The Confederate military 
encampment was at the town of Russellville, near the 
southern border. There in the military camp these men 
held a meeting and resolved Kentucky out of the Union, 
and applied for the admission of the State into the 
Southern Confederacy. They even made a governor — 
George W. Johnson — and appointed men to represent 
Kentucky in the Confederate Congress. 

The Confederate authorities, being advised of the ac- 
tion, went through the formality of admitting Kentucky 
into the Confederacy. 

In order that it may appear how the will and wishes of 
the people of Kentucky were utterly disregarded by those 
of her people who preferred the Southern Confederacy to 
their own State, as well as to the Union, the details of 
this extraordinary action will be given. 

The convention at Russellville was held November 18, 
19, and 20, 1 861. How it came to assemble is indicated in 
the record of its proceedings. No authority existed for 

200 



" Provisional Government" 201 

such a convention, and those composing it had left the 
State, and had returned with the Confederate army. 
They were at a town near the southern border, and the 
Confederate military lines extended only a short distance 
from the Tennessee line. The occupancy in Kentucky 
was of a fractional portion only, and that military and 
temporary. 

On the 29th of October sixty-three men, who were in 
Russellville during the occupation of that place by the 
Confederate troops, met in a hall, selected a chairman and 
secretary, and appointed a committee on resolutions. 

On the next day the committee reported resolutions, 
which were adopted. The resolutions were, that: 

" Whereas, The Legislature of Kentucky has violated solemn 
pledges, deceived and betrayed the people, abandoned neu- 
trality, invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln, 
abdicated the government in favor of military despotism, 
brought on the State the horrors and ravages of war, voted men 
and money for the war waged by the North, violated the 
Constitution by borrowing $5,000,000 for the support of 
the war, permitting the arrest and imprisonment of citizens, 
transferred the prerogatives of the executive to a military 
commission of partisans, allowed the writ of habeas corpus to be 
suspended, permitted our people to be driven into exile from 
their homes, subjected our property to confiscation, and our 
persons to confinement, because we chose to take part in a 
contest for civil liberty, 

''Resolved, That the unconstitutional edicts of a factious 
majority of the Legislature thus false to their pledges, their 
honor, and their interests, are not law, and that such govern- 
ment is unworthy of a brave and free people, and we therefore 
denounce their unconstitutional acts and usurpations, and bid 
defiance both to the Federal and State governments. 

''Resolved, That abandoned and betrayed as we have been 
by the Lincolnite majority of the Legislature of Kentucky, and 
proscribed by the abolition party who have usurped the Federal 
government, and broken down the Constitution of the Federal 



202 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Union, and being as yet no part of the Southern Confederacy, 
and therefore altogether without the protection of law, the 
people have by the laws of God and the express letter of the 
Constitution of Kentucky, 'at all times an inalienable and 
indefeasible right to reform or abolish their government in such 
manner as they may think proper,' and in the language of the 
same Constitution, we declare, 'that absolute and arbitrary 
power over the lives and liberty and property of freemen exists 
nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.' 

''Resolved, That we do hereby declare that the majority of 
the Legislature by their acts have abandoned, betrayed, and 
abdicated the government, and that the people have now a 
right to a fair representation of their will, and that the Gover- 
nor be and is invited to convene a Legislature to meet outside 
the lines of the Lincoln army, to be composed of such mem- 
bers as are now elected, and may attend, or new members to 
be chosen by the people. And whereas we have reason to 
believe that the Governor is unable to convene the Legislature 
outside the lines of the Lincoln army, therefore, 

''Resolved, That we recommend a convention to be chosen, 
elected, or appointed in any manner now possible by the people 
of the several counties of the State, to meet at Russellville on 
the 1 8th day of November, and we recommend to them the 
passage of an ordinance severing forever our connection with 
the Federal government, and to adopt such measures, either 
by the adoption of a provisional government or otherwise as 
in their judgment will give full and ample protection to the 
citizens in their persons and property and secure to them the 
blessings of constitutional government. 

"Resolved, That we recommend to the people, in every 
county where they have the power to do so, to organize at 
once a county guard, of at least one hundred men, to be armed 
by the people, in every county, and mounted, if possible, to be 
paid as Confederate troops, and subject to duty in their own 
and adjoining counties, and subject also to the rule and 
regulations of the Confederate States and to the order of the 
commanding general. 

"Resolved, That we will never pay one cent of the uncon- 



** Provisional Government " 203 

stitutional loan of $5,000,000 obtained by the Legislature from 
the banks for the prosecution of this war instituted for the 
coercion and subjugation of the slaveholding States, and that 
we will resist, by force of arms if necessary, the collection by 
the sheriff of all taxes intended to be paid over to the Lincoln 
party in the Legislature, and that we denounce as enemies to 
their country and constitutional government all those who may 
advocate the payment of the same to the sheriffs for the 
purposes aforesaid. 

''Resolved, That Robert McKee, John C. Breckinridge, 
Humphrey Marshall, George W. Ewing, H. W. Bruce, G. B. 
Hodge, William Preston, G. W, Johnson, Blanton Duncan, 
and T. B. Thompson be and are hereby appointed a committee 
to carry out the above resolutions." 

This meeting was styled "the Southern Conference." 
Its proceedings were published, and pursuant to the call 
contained in the resolution the convention of November 
1 8th was held. The proceedings of the convention say: 

" Pursuant to a call issued by the Southern Conference, 
held at Russellville on the 29th, 30th, and 31st days of 
October, 1861, the people of Kentucky assembled in conven- 
tion at Russellville on Monday, November 18, 186 1, to take into 
consideration the unfortunate condition of the State and 
devise, if possible, some means of preserving the independence 
of the Commonweath, and their liberties." 

The call, therefore, was issued by those persons who 
chose to style themselves "the Southern Conference." 
They had not been able to have a convention called by 
the regularly elected representatives of the people in 
the Kentucky Legislature, so they assumed to call one 
themselves. 

The object of the convention was "to consider the 
unfortunate condition of the State." This was an 
assumption that people of the State did not know what 
they wanted, or needed, or was good for them; that 
although the people had declared their will at the polls, 



204 Union Cause in Kentucky 

with absolute freedom, a great moral obligation rested 
upon the defeated party that they should take care of the 
State. There is more than grandeur in this; it attains to 
the sublime in audacious presumption. 

The convention thus called, for the purpose stated, 
adopted resolutions: 

"That whereas the President and Congress have treated 
the supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to 
themselves power, and have substituted for national liberty a 
centralized despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of 
the masses of Northern society, and, instead of giving pro- 
tection to the people of fifteen States of this Union, have 
turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions 
of mobs and fanatics; and because we now seek to hold our 
liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the 
protection of the reserved powers of the States, have block- 
aded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our 
people for the purpose of subjugation to their will; 

"And whereas our honor and our duty to posterity demand 
that we shall not relinquish our own liberty, nor abandon the 
right of our descendants and of the world to the blessings of 
Constitutional government, 

"Be it ordained: That we do hereby forever sever our 
connection with the government of the United States, and 
in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky 
to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power 
to fix her own destiny, and to secure her own rights and 
liberties." 

It will be observed that in the foregoing preamble it is 
declared that Congress had treated the supreme law with 
contempt, and usurped powers. So now in a preamble 
to the next resolution it is declared that the Kentucky 
Legislature violated most solemn pledges, and deceived 
and betrayed the people, invited military despotism, and 
have thrown upon the people the ravages of war, sub- 
jected their property to confiscation, and their persons 



** Provisional Government " 205 

to the penitentiary, and such-like monstrous practices; 
therefore, 

"Be it ordained: That the unconstitutional edicts of a 
factious majority of a Legislature thus false to their pledges, 
their honor, and their interests, are not laws, and that such 
government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free 
people, and that 

" We do therefore declare that the people are thereby ab- 
solved from all allegiance to said government, and that they 
have the right to establish any government which to them may 
seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and 
liberties." 

The convention then, among other things, appointed 
three commissioners to negotiate with the Southern 
Confederacy for the admission of Kentucky into that 
government. 

A form of government was also made for Kentucky — 
wonderful in its simplicity, and beyond degree strange, 
emanating from men who were supposed to believe in 
government by the people. 

Section I of the Constitution provided that " the su- 
preme executive and legislative powers of the provisional 
government of this Commonwealth shall be vested in a 
Governor and ten Councilmen." 

The Governor and Council have full power to pass laws; 
and in case of vacancy, the Council shall choose another 
Governor. All governmental powers were lodged in this 
Board. {War Records, Serial No. 127, p. 740.) 

George W. Johnson, of Scott County, was made Gov- 
ernor of Kentucky, and the Council of ten appointed. 
The Governor and Council thus named proceeded to enact 
laws for the State, which were duly published in the 
Louisville Courier, which paper was printed and issued at 
Bowling Green as long as the Confederates remained in 
Kentucky, which was up to the month of February, 1862. 

Among the legislative acts of this singular legislative 
body were the following : 



2o6 Union Cause in Kentucky 

"That all sales of property made under any judgment of 
the Supreme Court of the United States, or any District Court 
of the United States, since November 20, 1861, are declared 
null and void and no title shall pass to the purchaser. Ap- 
proved January 28, 1862." (Bowling Green Courier, February 

7, 1862.) 

"An Act to amend the charter of the Louisville & Nash- 
ville Railroad. Approved January 25, 1862." (/<^., February 

8, 1862.) 

"An Act abolishing the equity and criminal courts of the 
Fourth Judicial District of Kentucky," ^Ib?) 

"An Act that the Bank Commissioner of the State of 
Kentucky shall administer an oath to every Bank President, 
Director, Cashier, Teller, Clerk, Messenger, or any other 
officer of every bank in Kentucky, that he will support the 
Constitution of the Confederate States, and of the provisional 
government of Kentucky. Approved February 15, 1862." 
(/^., February 10, 1862.) 

"An Act prohibiting the opening of the polls and holding 
an election in the first district under proclamation of B. 
Magoffin." In the act Governor Magoffin is mentioned as 
follows: "In obedience to the proclamation aforesaid, or any 
other proclamation issuing from said B. Magoffin, or any 
other person professing to exercise the functions of Governor 
of Kentucky other than the Governor of this provisional 
government." (/<^., February 10, 1862.) 

"An Act to change the name of Wolfe County, Ky., the 
same to be called Zollicoffer County. Approved Jany 28, 
1862." (/^., February 11, 1862.)' 

George W. Johnson, who had been made Governor, 
was killed about four months afterward, in the battle of 
Shiloh, and Richard Hawes, of Bourbon County, was 
chosen as his successor. In order to keep up the farce, 
Hawes was inaugurated at Frankfort when the Confeder- 
ate army under Generals Bragg and Kirby Smith came 
into Kentucky in the fall of 1862, but retired before the 

• See Appendix, t^ 16, p. 351. 



" Provisional Government " 207 

ceremonies were over on account of the approach of 
Buell's army. 

The commissioners who were appointed to obtain the 
admission of Kentucky into the Confederacy successfully 
carried out their mission. On the loth day of December, 
1 861, it was enacted by the Confederate Congress: 

"That the State of Kentucky be and is hereby ad- 
mitted a member of the Confederate States of America, 
on an equal footing with the other States of the 
Confederacy." 

It is interesting to note upon what grounds the singular 
performance of these men, in a military camp, assuming 
to act for the State of Kentucky, was based by them- 
selves. A full disclosure upon this point is contained in 
a letter to the Confederate President, from George W. 
Johnson, dated November 21, 1861. 

He did not base the action upon the right of secession, 
but upon the right of revolution. He declares that. Con- 
gress and the Legislature having adopted oppressive and 
despotic acts, nothing was left but resistance; that the 
right of secession not being possible, revolution was the 
only way. 

"The foundation, therefore, upon which the pro- 
visional government rests, is a right of revolution institu- 
ted by the people, for the preservation of the liberty and 
interests and the honor of a vast majority of the citizens 
of Kentucky." {War Records, Serial No. 127, p. 743.) 

It seems incredible, and doubtless it would not be 
believed, that such utterances could have come from an 
intelligent source, but for the fact that the letter of 
Johnson is embalmed in the records of the country. He 
knew how the people of Kentucky had voted. He knew 
that they had decreed by their suffrages that they would 
not take the State out of the Union and into the Con- 
federacy, and yet he professes to be acting for a vast 
majority of the citizens of Kentucky. 



2o8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Johnson goes on in the letter in bitter denunciation of 
the leaders of the Union party in Kentucky. Who they 
were he does not say. It might be supposed that the 
distinguished men who had been elected to Congress in 
June — Crittenden, Wickliffe, Jackson, Harding, Grider, 
Dunlap, Mallory, Wadsworth, Menzies — were leaders, 
but he says the leaders had ** embodied in their creed 
that their party was in favor of an ultimate connection 
of the State with the South," and certainly none of these 
men who were voting in Congress in July, 1861, for men 
and money to put down the rebellion ever heard of such 
a creed. It might be supposed that R. J.Breckinridge 
and Joshua F. Bell and James Speed, James Guthrie, S. 
S. Nicholas, Garrett Davis, the Clays, the Underwoods, 
Burnam, Garrard, the Buckners, the Hobsons, the Wards, 
the Goodloes, the Harlans, and scores of such-like men 
were leaders, but their creed was ' * secession is a remedy for 
no evil, but an aggravation of all." No one of the 
Union leaders ever heard of a creed among Union men 
favoring ultimate connection with the South. 

Johnson goes on to say: 

"Up to the last moment of safety, we attempted to 
save the State by State action, and we did this because 
we knew the people were almost unanimously with us as 
to the ultimate destiny of the State." 

Such words are astounding in the face of the fact that 
Kentucky elected Union men against secessionists by 
overwhelming majorities; in the face of the further fact 
that at the time the words were written the Union regi- 
ments were filling up all over the State, and in the face 
of the further fact that three times as many Kentuckians 
served in the Union army as in the Confederate army. 

But the representations had the desired effect. Presi- 
dent Davis transmitted Mr. Johnson's letter to the Presi- 
dent of Congress, Hon. Howell Cobb, saying the powerful 
exposition of the misrepresentation of the people of 



** Provisional Government" 209 

Kentucky by the people they had chosen to vote for led 
him to the conclusion that "the revolution in which they 
were engaged offered the only remedy within their reach 
against usurpation and oppression." 

He also said the proceedings for the admission of 
Kentucky into the Confederacy were irregular, but there 
was enough merit in it to warrant a disregard of the 
irregularity, and admit the State, 

In all the annals of history there cannot be found such 
a revolution as this — a revolution of the people in which 
the people did not engage — a revolution which the people 
voted against — a revolution concocted by men whom the 
people had beaten at the polls — a revolution to drag a 
people where they did not want to go, and emphatically 
refused to go. 

The farce may have misled the Confederate authorities; 
especially it may have misled the Confederate military 
leaders, for they afterwards came into Kentucky in great 
force and offered to the oppressed people the golden 
opportunity to rise and break their shackles. But the 
people met them in battle array and forced them to retire, 
complaining that they had been misinformed as to the 
feelings of the people of Kentucky, and the arms they 
brought to place in the hands of the rising multitudes 
were carried back or cast away in retreat. 

Certainly Governor Magoffin was in sufficient sympathy 
with all that pertained to the Southern cause to lead him 
to look favorably upon the action at Russellville if there 
had been any merit in it whatever, but his expression on 
the subject at the time was decidedly condemnatory. 
The message of "Governor " Johnson being published, in 
which he said "I will gladly resign whenever the regularly 
elected Governor [that is, Magoffin] shall escape from his 
virtual imprisonment at Frankfort," Governor Magoffin 
said of the convention at Russellville: "I condemn its 
action in unqualified terms. Self-constituted as it was 



2IO Union Cause in Kentucky 

and without authority from the people, it cannot be justi- 
fied by similar revolutionary acts in other States by 
minorities to overthrow the State governments. I con- 
demn their action and I condemn the action of this one; 
my position is and has been, and will continue to be, to 
abide by the will of the majority of the people of the 
State." (Collins, vol. i., p. 98.) 

The mention that has been made of the Russellville 
"convention" and its proceedings by the historians 
of Kentucky varies. Shaler calls it a "pretence of 
legislation." He says: 

"Few more curious instances of political pretence can be 
found in history. It is impossible to see what was the profit 
of this action. So far from gaining sympathy for the 
rebellion, in Kentucky, it tended rather to discredit the Con- 
federacy among the people." 
But he has no word of condemnation. 

He finds occasions to use many strong objurgatory 
words in recounting what was done from time to time by 
Kentucky Unionists: such expressions as "brutal," 
"pernicious," "disgraceful," "iniquitous," "exasperat- 
ing," "usurpation," "prostituted," are applied liberally 
to the Unionists and all that they did. He speaks of the 
"utter degradation of the solemnity of an oath"; that 
"the Legislature in casting about for a safeguard against 
the numerous sympathizers with the rebellion bethought 
itself of this bond of the oath," but that "this miscella- 
neous oath-taking was a degradation of a most sacred 
relation, that brought no profit to those who prostituted 
it to political ends." 

Thus he characterizes what was done by the Unionist 
Legislature of Kentucky. But the usurpation at Russell- 
ville does not receive from the "Unionist" historian any 
harsh expression, only a mild disapproval — far milder 
than that of Governor Magofifin, who was not a Unionist. 
And while he condemns the ' ' degradation of oath-taking 



"Provisional Government" 211 

as required by the Legislature, he is silent as to the 
requirements of the Russellville "government" that all 
bank officers in Kentucky, from president down to 
messenger, should take the oath of allegiance to the 
Southern Confederacy." 

Z. F. Smith says: "On the i8th of November the 
States Rights party met by delegates at Russellville, 
Kentucky, and organized a provisional government, 
under which the State went through the form of admis- 
sion into the Confederacy." 

He gives no details; does not mention that Confeder- 
ate troops had come into Russellville, and that the people 
who made up the convention had come in with them. 
He leaves the reader of his history to infer that a party 
really met by delegates, in a delegate convention, after 
the usual practice. Nor does he give any clue to the 
absurdity of the proceedings by any comment. (P. 619.) 

General George B. Hodge, writing the " Outline History" 
in Collins's Kentucky, makes no mention of the fact that 
the Confederate forces were at Russellville. He says a 
call was published — he does not say by whom — "sum- 
moning the people of Kentucky to organize a govern- 
ment. A convention of persons claiming to be delegates 
from all the counties not under control of the Federal 
armies assembled at Russellville." He then states that 
a constitution was adopted and a Governor and a Council 
chosen, and that "in this body was provisionally vested 
all the legislative and executive authority of the State." 

Hodge writes upon the subject with all the gravity as 
if he had been recounting the most orderly, dignified, and 
bona fide proceedings. His readers would never know 
from his work that they were as extraordinary as it is 
plain they were from the account herein given. 



CHAPTER XIV 

BRAGG* S INVASION OF KENTUCKY 

THE greatest military event that ever took place in 
Kentucky was the invasion of 1862. It is com- 
monly called "Bragg's invasion," but this expression 
carries the mind mainly to the march of Bragg's army up 
from Tennessee through Glasgow, Munfordville, Bards- 
town, and out by way of Perryville, whereas the invasion 
also extended over the country about Lexington and 
east of that point. Three Confederate armies entered 
the State by concerted action — Bragg from Chattanooga, 
Kirby Smith from Knoxville, and Humphrey Marshall 
from southwestern Virginia. At the same time raiding 
bands were active in the western part of the State. 

It was called an "invasion" and correctly so. In one 
very important particular it was an absolutely unwar- 
ranted invasion. The invaders came for the avowed pur- 
pose of enforcing in Kentucky the conscription law of the 
Confederacy, precisely as if Kentucky had been one of 
the States that had joined the Confederacy. The Con- 
federate conscription law forced into the ranks every man 
of military age. It was not a draft which took one out 
of several by lot, but conscription swept in all. The 
voters of Kentucky who steadily refused to secede were 
to be forcibly taken and forced into the Confederate ranks 
and made to fight against their own principles. 

The invasion was unlooked-for and unexpected, and the 
State was in no way prepared to resist it. In the first days 
of August, 1862, Bragg's main army was in the vicinity 



Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky 213 

of Chattanooga, and Buell, with the opposing Federal 
army, was in the southern part of middle Tennessee. 
No one was expecting any movement like the one which 
suddenly took place.' 

One object of the invasion is stated by General Bragg 
in his report. He says that the army with him was to 
co-operate with that of Kirby Smith and that of Hum- 
phrey Marshall; that on August 28th Smith moved 
upon Lexington, Kentucky. "That rich country," says 
he, "full of supplies so necessary to us, was represented 
to be occupied by a force which could make but feeble 
resistance." Smith first moved into this "rich country " 
and Bragg's advance immediately followed. He marched 
rapidly up from Tennessee, arriving at Glasgow Septem- 
ber 13th. Moving on northwards, he took Munfordville 
September 17th. 

At that time he was, says he, "reduced to three days' 
rations and in a hostile country utterly destitute of sup- 
plies." He says he could not hazard a battle with Buell's 
army, which was also moving northwardly. "We were 
therefore compelled to give up the object and seek for 
subsistence." He therefore hastened on to Bardstown. 
There General Bragg, leaving General Polk in com- 
mand, went in person to Lexington. At Lexington he 
ordered Kirby Smith to move to Frankfort, to which place 
he went himself, to be present at the inauguration of 
Governor Hawes. Then he says: 

"Finding but little progress had been made in the 
transfer of our accumulated stores from Lexington," 
and learning of Buell's advance out from Louisville, "this 
required abandonment of the capital and partial uncover- 
ing and ultimate loss of our stores at Lexington." 

He then went to Perryville and met General Polk 
there with his army, October 7th, and on the next day 
the battle was fought. After that, he retired from the 

' See Appendix, § 17, p. 352. 



2 14 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

State, through the mountains, over the Old Wilderness 
Road, and through Cumberland Gap. At the conclu- 
sion of his report, instead of acknowledging failure, he 
boasts of killing, wounding, and capturing "no less than 
25,000 of the enemy, taken over thirty pieces of artillery, 
17,000 small arms, some 2,000,000 cartridges for same, 
destroyed some hundreds of wagons, and brought off 
several hundred more with their teams and harness com- 
plete; replaced our jaded horses by a fine remount, lived 
two months upon supplies wrested from the enemy's 
possession, secured material to clothe the army, and finally 
secured subsistence from the redeemed country to sup- 
port not only the army, but also a large force of the Con- 
federacy to the present time." {War Records, series i, 
vol. 16, p. 1088.) 

The State which declined to secede was redeemed by 
an invasion of her richest section, subsisting an army 
upon the country, and carrying away whatever could be 
carried in a disastrous retreat. It is evident that one 
object of the invasion was supplies. It is said that his 
spoils loaded nearly four thousand wagons with the 
plunderings of dry goods stores, groceries, etc. The 
Richmond Examiner boasted that his train was forty miles 
long, and brought a million yards of jeans, boots and 
shoes, clothing, bacon. From one house in Lexington 
more than $100,000 worth of jeans and linseys were taken. 
Trains of wagons were moving out of the various towns 
of central Kentucky day and night, and Lexington 
furnished the richest harvest the Confederates had dur- 
ing the war. (W. J. Tenney's History of the Rebellion, 
p. 288.) 

Another object was recruits for the army, volunteers 
or conscripts. General Bragg issued a proclamation say- 
ing he came to offer an opportunity to the people to free 
themselves from the tyranny of a despotic ruler. "Believ- 
ing that the heart of Kentucky is with us, we have trans- 



Bragg' s Invasion of Kentucky 215 

ferred from our own soil to yours not a band of 
marauders, but a powerful and well-disciplined army. 
We have come with joyous hopes." 

General Smith said : 

"We came to strike off the chains which are riveted 
upon you. We call upon you to unite your arms and 
join with us in hurling back from our fair and sunny plains 
the northern hordes who would deprive us of our liberty, 
that they may enjoy our substance." 

The very language of Bragg's proclamation shows that 
he did not really regard Kentucky as a Confederate State: 
*' We have transferred from our soil to yours " a power- 
ful army. Yet that soil which did not belong to the 
Confederacy was to be a field for conscription. 

While at Bardstown, Bragg issued an address, calling 
upon the people to rally to his standard : that he had arms 
and ammunition for all; that the usual pay and bounty 
would be given ; that after twenty companies of cavalry 
were received the recruits would be placed in the infantry 
service. Then follows the strange words to the ears of 
the Kentucky people: "This is the last opportunity 
Kentuckians will enjoy for volunteering. The conscript 
act will be enforced as soon as the necessary arrange- 
ments can be made." {War Records, Serial No. no, 

P- 365-) 

The historians who find so much to condemn in the 
conduct of the war, on the part of the Federal command- 
ers in Kentucky, make no comment upon this treatment 
of the Kentucky Unionists by the Confederates. They 
denounce as outrages "military arrests of civilians," but 
pass over in silence this proposed wholesale arrest of all 
able-bodied men in the State for service in the Confeder- 
ate ranks. They find no place to express condemnation 
of it. They do not even mention it in the accounts they 
give of the invasion. 

General Hodge, writing of this campaign, says: 



2i6 Union Cause in Kentucky 

"Bragg, disgusted with the lukewarmness which manifested 
itself on the subject of recruiting for the army, lost his head, 
divided his army to meet the division Buell had made of his, 
fought near Perryville the larger force which Buell had on the 
south bank of the Kentucky River with the smaller moiety of 
his own, defeated it, called back his large body from the 
direction of Lexington and Frankfort, and retreated out of the 
State with more rapidity than he had entered it." (Collins, 
vol. i., p. 348.) 

Smith says that after the battle of Perryville 

"the two armies, now in full strength, confronted each other, 
45,000 Confederates, 54,000 Federals. Their lines were but 
three miles apart, and it was the general belief that Bragg 
should and would deliver battle to his enemy, now on terms as 
nearly equal as is usual in the great contests of war. 
The expectation of a great battle on that day was disappointed. 
Bragg ordered his command to fall back upon his base at 
Bryantsville, and gathering up all supplies collected he con- 
tinued his march of retreat to Lancaster, where the army 
was divided, Smith going out by Richmond and Cumberland 
Gap, and Bragg by Crab Orchard and Tennessee." 

He makes no reflection upon the drain that was made 
upon the Kentucky people to supply the wants of a vast 
army, nor upon the preparations to conscript the people 
themselves into the Confederate service, but contents 
himself with quoting a wail from General Duke's book^ 
that thus ended a campaign from which so much was 
expected, and that the best chance of the war was thrown 
away. Also that, at the Confederate capital, the Rich- 
mond papers spoke of the campaign as a "brilliant 
blunder, a magnificent failure, profoundly disappointing, 
and mortifying Southern people and dashing their fond 
hopes of liberating Kentucky and Tennessee from the 
Federal hold." (1^.649.) 

Shaler, who finds space to condemn the Federal offi- 
cers in Kentucky, especially those who were Kentuckians, 



Bragg' s Invasion of Kentucky 217 

on account of the popular stories of the day, unsup- 
ported by any records, who condemns the provost 
marshals and the Home Guards in the same way, has 
nothing to say about the wrongs done and contemplated 
by the invasion. He says: "There can be no doubt 
that the people of Kentucky endured far more outrage 
from the acts of the Federal provost marshals than they 
did from all the acts of legitimate war put together." 

(P. 353.) 

He also tells of the "brutal tyranny of the provost 
marshal system" and of the trouble given by Home 
Guards who "could not be kept in proper control" and 
were "an element of great danger in the civil government 
of the State." 

All this and much more is freely set down to the 
discredit of the Kentucky Unionists. But Bragg's in- 
vasion only elicits the following reflection : 

"The battle of Perryville, which made the retreat of Bragg 
an imperative necessity, came three weeks after the defeat of 
Lee at Antietam. It was necessary that the Confederates 
should win in both these hazards in order that their cause 
should succeed. In both cases the result was the sullen 
retreat of the Confederate forces into their strongholds. Their 
enemies were checked, but not broken, and the Federal forces 
were not able to give a crushing pursuit to the forces they had 
beaten back. Far better than the Northern armies, the troops 
of the Confederacy withstood the trials of a defeat." 

Shaler says he was a Unionist, but he finds many a 
derogatory word for those of his own side, while he dis- 
misses Bragg's invasion of Kentucky to gather spoils, 
and conscript Kentucky Unionists, with no word but a 
compliment. 

Having considered the invasion on the Confederate 
side, it is proper to notice some of the features of the 
Federal side. 

It has been stated that General Bragg knew that there 



2i8 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

were no troops in Kentucky that could resist the great 
invasion. Such was the case. When General Buell 
heard that Kirby Smith had moved in toward Lexing- 
ton, he dispatched General Nelson to Louisville to look 
after the defence. Nelson went on to Lexington, and, 
collecting the few troops, fought a most unequal battle at 
Richmond, and, being defeated, returned to Louisville 
and organized all the troops obtainable, to the number 
of between 30,000 and 40,000, all that could be rallied 
from every direction. Nelson was killed in a personal 
difficulty by a brother officer on the 29th of September. 

It should be stated that on the i8th of August Gov- 
ernor Magoffin, finding that he was in no way in accord 
with the Legislature or the people of Kentucky, resigned 
his office, and the Speaker of the Senate, James F. 
Robinson, became Governor in his stead. In less than 
two weeks, August 31st, the entire State government 
removed hastily from Frankfort to Louisville, on account 
of the approach of Kirby Smith's troops. At Louisville 
the Legislature resolved that the invasion must be 
resisted and repelled by all the power of the State. At 
the same time Governor Robinson issued the following 
proclamation : 

"Frankfort, Ky., August 31, 1862. 
" To THE People of Kentucky: 

"A crisis has arisen in the history of the Commonwealth, 
which demands of every loyal citizen of Kentucky prompt and 
efficient action. The State has been invaded by an insolent 
foe; her honor is sullied, her peace disturbed, and her 
integrity imperiled. The small and gallant army raised upon 
the emergency of the occasion for her defence, under the 
brave and chivalric Nelson, has met with a temporary reverse, 
and the enemy is advancing for the accomplishment of his 
purpose — the subjugation of the State. He must be met and 
driven from our border, and it is in your power to do so. I 
therefore, as Governor of the Commonwealth, deem it my 
duty to call upon every loyal citizen of Kentucky to rally to 



Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky 219 

the defence of the State. Not a moment is to be lost. I 
appeal to you as Kentuckians, as worthy sons of those who 
rescued the dark and bloody ground from savage barbarity, 
by the memories of the past of your history and by the future 
of your fame, if you are but true to yourselves, to rise in the 
majesty of your strength, and drive the insolent invader of 
your soil from your midst. Now is the time for Kentuckians 
to defend themselves. Each man must constitute himself a 
soldier, arm himself as best he can, and meet the foe at every 
step of his advance. The day and the hour, the safety of 
your homes and firesides, patriotism and duty, alike demand 
that you rush to the rescue, I call upon the people then to 
rise up as a man and strike a blow for the defence of their 
native land, their property, and their homes. Rally in the 
standard wherever it may be nearest, place yourselves under 
the commanders, obey orders, trust to your own right arm 
and the God of battle, and the foe will be driven back, dis- 
comfited and annihilated. 

"To Arms! To Arms! and never lay them down till the 
Stars and Stripes float in triumph throughout Kentucky. 

"I but perform my duty in thus summoning you to the 
defence of your State, and I am assured that it will be 
promptly responded to. I promise that I will share with you 
the glory of the triumph which surely awaits you. 
" Done in the city of Frankfort this 31st day of August, 1862. 

" By the Governor, James F. Robinson. 

"D, C. WiCKLIFFE, 

"Secretary of State." 

Such was the ansvi^er Kentucky made to the pro- 
clamation of the leaders of the invasion, who called 
upon the people to rise and emancipate themselves from 
their own chosen adhesion to the Union, and to rally to 
the support of a cause which they repudiated. 

In response to the call of the Governor, the Kentucky 
Unionists were rallying to the regiments already in the 
field, and other new regiments were formed. Eleven 
new regiments were organized. The State militia filled 



220 Union Cause in Kentucky 

up the Home Guard companies, and thousands flocked 
to the points of danger, especially to Louisville, to put 
themselves, as the Governor urged, "under the com- 
manders and obey orders." 

General Bragg lamented the apathy of the Kentuckians 
and their indifference to his appeal to rise and throw off 
the yoke of despotism, but Governor Robinson's procla- 
mation did not fall upon heedless ears. 

In the testimony of General Boyle before the Buell 
Court of Inquiry, he says that when he first heard of the 
advance of Kirby Smith he had in Kentucky only about 
2000 troops. He says he called for troops from every- 
body; that they increased so rapidly he could not 
approximate the number, amounting at last to forty or 
fifty thousand. The sources from whence this aggregation 
came can be understood in his answer to the question, 
"What would have been the effective force? " He could 
not tell; "the men," says he, "marched from camp on 
the edge of the city for the purpose of review and to 
learn how to march and to handle their guns. Large 
numbers broke down. I believe they were all new regi- 
ments." {War Records^ series i, vol. i6, p. 371.) 

General Granger testifies of thirty-six or thirty-seven 
thousand raw recruits at Louisville. {lb., p. 428.) 

In other parts of the State there was a similar rally to 
the defence against the invasion. 

When this spirit of the Kentucky people is con- 
sidered and compared with the insignificant number 
which responded to the call of General Bragg, all ques- 
tions as to their stand are conclusively settled. General 
Bragg made a report a few days after the battle of Perry. 
ville, in which he uses this language : 

"The campaign here was predicated on the belief and the 
most positive assurances that the people of this country would 
rise in mass to assert their independence. No people ever had 
so favorable an opportunity, but I am distressed to add that 



Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky 221 

there is little or no disposition to avail of it. Willing, per- 
haps, to accept their independence, they are neither disposed 
nor willing to risk their lives or their property in its achieve- 
ment. With ample means to arm 20,000 men and a force with 
that to fully redeem the State, we have not as yet issued half 
of the arms left us by casualties incident to the campaign." 

The largest estimate of Kentuckians who availed 
themselves of this opportunity to enter the Confederate 
service is 5000, but Shaler, after investigation, puts 
the number at 2500. (P. 320.) 

Instead of rallying to Bragg, they were rushing into 
Union regiments all through the summer and fall of 
1862. 

The Kentucky regiments which had been organized in 
the summer and fall of 1861 were either with Buell's 
army, or with Grant, proceeding down the Mississippi 
toward Vicksburg. Those that were with Buell, being 
over thirty, made the long and rapid march from the 
southern part of Tennessee to Louisville in the months 
of August and September. The season was dry and hot. 
Water was scarce and the dust intolerable. The march 
from Elizabethtown to Louisville, forty-three miles, was 
made in twenty- four hours. Resting a few days, the move 
was to Perryville. Eight Kentucky regiments were there 
engaged, notably the Fifteenth Infantry, which lost 
heavily. Colonel Curran Pope being mortally wounded, 
Lieutenant-Colonel George P. Jouett and Major William 
P. Campbell killed; also, Lieutenants McClure and 
McGrath and sixty-three men killed and two hundred 
wounded. 

Among the killed in the battle of Perryville was Gen- 
eral James S. Jackson, a native of Lexington, but who 
had removed to Hopkinsville to practise law in that place. 
He had served as a lieutenant in the Mexican War. He 
had been elected to Congress in June, 1861, but resigned 
his seat and went home to enter the military service on 



22 2 Union Cause in Kentucky 

behalf of the Union cause. He raised and led the Third 
Kentucky Cavalry until August, 1862, when he was 
made Brigadier-General, and in that capacity he was serv- 
ing at the time of his death. It is proper to quote 
here what was said of this sad event by Colonel John W. 
Forney, the Philadelphia editor: 

" To die such a death and for such a cause was the highest 
ambition of a man like James S. Jackson. He was the highest 
type of the Kentucky gentleman. To a commanding person 
he added an exquisite grace and suavity of manner, and a 
character that served to embody the purest and noblest 
chivalry. He was a Union man for the sake of the Union, 
and now with his heart's blood he has sealed his devotion to 
the flag. He leaves a multitude of friends who will honor his 
courage and patriotism and mourn his untimely and gallant 
end." 

A singular series of events occurred just preceding and 
during the invasion of Bragg, in connection with the 
State government at Frankfort, and the bogus "pro- 
visional government" which had been devised at Russell- 
ville. On the i6th of August, 1862, Governor Magoffin 
signified his intention to resign, being entirely out of 
harmony with all of his surroundings. The office of 
Lieutenant-Governor being vacant, the Speaker of the 
Senate, John W. Fisk, would succeed him. Fisk, how- 
ever, resigned his office in order that James F. Robinson 
might be made Governor, which was done August i8th. 
This change is duly noted in Collins's Annals, and in less 
than two weeks thereafter this entry appears : 

"August 31, Sunday nighty the Legislature meets in extraor- 
dinary session, attends to the usual routine of business, and 
agrees to adjourn (out of tender consideration and respect for 
the Confederate army now approaching uncomfortably near) 
to meet in the Court House at Louisvile on Tuesday, 
September 2." 



Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky 223 

Thus Collins notes, in somewhat gleeful style, the 
sudden removal of the whole State government from 
Frankfort on accoimt of the great invasion. 

Then, one month and four days after, the following 
entry appears : 

" Oct. 4. Inaugural ceremonies of the provisional govern- 
ment of Kentucky, at Frankfort. Richard Hawes, of Bourbon, 
inaugurated Governor and in an address tells the listen- 
ing crowd that 'the State would be held by the Confederate 
army, cost what it might,' a statement and assurance uttered 
in perfect good faith, and which his proud and honorable na- 
ture would have scorned to make, had he suspected that the 
vacillating General Bragg had deceived him, and that the Con- 
federate army had even then commenced its ill-advised retreat. 
Four hours later the new government left Franklin in dignified 
haste, never to return." 

Thus Collins records in somewhat doleful style the 
sudden exit from Frankfort of the "provisional Gover- 
nor " whose credentials were from the governing council 
named at Russellville in November, 1861, and which 
council had appointed Richard Hawes Governor of 
Kentucky after the death of George W, Johnson, who fell 
at Shiloh. 

Another incident of the invasion was the extraordinary 
escape of the Federal troops from Cumberland Gap. 
When Kirby Smith moved into Kentucky he left a force 
to capture the garrison at that place, which was com- 
manded by General George W. Morgan. The point was 
literally cut off from all aid, and the country without 
provisions. Confederates were on both sides of the Gap. 
Kirby Smith's and Humphrey Marshall's forces were in 
Kentucky. There was nothing for Morgan to do but to 
abandon the Gap and escape if he could. September 
i6th the retreat was commenced. The force he had 
was the Seventh Kentucky Infantry, Colonel Garrard ; 



224 Union Cause in Kentucky 

the Fourteenth Kentucky Infantry, Colonel Cochran; the 
Nineteenth Kentucky Infantry, Colonel Landrum; the 
Twenty-Second Kentucky Infantry, Colonel D. W. 
Lindsay ; Mundy's Battalion of the Sixth Kentucky 
Cavalry, and Patterson's company of engineers. He also 
had with him the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, 
and Sixth Tennessee regiments of Unionists. The re- 
treat was across the east end of Kentucky by way of Man- 
chester, Booneville, and West Liberty to Greenupsburg 
on the Ohio River. Perhaps the way followed the line of 
the ancient " Warriors' Path" along which the Indians 
had travelled long before. The country was familiar to 
Colonel Garrard and his mountain men, but it was full of 
Confederates. Marshall had orders to intercept the 
retreat, and General John Morgan's cavalry was assisting. 
General George Morgan says: "Frequent skirmishes 
took place, and it several times happened that while one 
Morgan was clearing out obstructions at the entrance of 
a defile the other Morgan was blockading the exit," In 
one instance a road had to be cut for four miles. For 
this work he had one thousand men under the super- 
vision of Captain William F. Patterson and his com- 
pany of engineers, a Kentucky organization which had a 
remarkable career throughout the war. 

The retreating force crossed Kentucky River at Proc- 
tor, eluded Marshall at West Liberty, made a feint 
toward Maysville, and pushed on for Greenupsburg, 
where the Ohio was reached with the loss of only eighty 
men. Cumberland Gap had been captured and occupied 
by General George W. Morgan on the iSthof June, 1862. 
He abandoned it, as stated, September i6th. For a year 
the place remained in the hands of the Confederates. In 
September, 1863, it was retaken by a Kentucky officer. 
General James M. Shackelford, in connection with Burn- 
side's East Tennessee expedition of 1863, and thence- 
forth was held by the Federal forces. 



CHAPTER XV 
morgan's raids 

As this work is not intended to be a history of the 
war, but is only to deal with the services of the 
Kentucky Unionists, no effort will be made to describe 
all the military operations which took place in the State. 
The various histories of the war have set forth all the 
larger movements and this will not be attempted here. 
But in order to show what were the services of the 
Kentucky Unionists, especially those who enlisted in 
the various regiments and in the Home Guard com- 
panies, it is necessary to mention briefly some of the 
military operations. Among these are the Morgan raids. 
Many of Morgan's followers were Kentuckians, and it 
was natural that when raiding in Kentucky was thought 
to be desirable, it was carried on by Morgan. His com- 
mand was several times in the State, and, while it did 
damage to the Federal cause in many ways, it is a remark- 
able fact that such damage would have been far greater 
except that he was met and turned back by the Union 
troops of Kentucky. He made five visits to his own 
State, and every time the visit was a hurried one. Every 
time he was compelled to retire, and conspicuous among 
the troops which he either encountered or escaped from 
were the Union troops of Kentucky. General Morgan's 
able lieutenant. General Basil W. Duke, has written a 
volume detailing the exploits of his chief, and in order 
to show in short space the general features of these 
IS 225 



226 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Kentucky raids, the headings of the chapters of Duke's 
history which describe operations in Kentucky will here 
be given ; 

"Chapter 8. Reorganization at Chattanooga. First raid 
into Kentucky. Fight at Tompkinsville. Capture of Leb- 
anon. Telegraph strategy. Morgan master of the situation. 
Fight at Cynthiana. Evade the pursuing troops. 

"Chapter lo. Again on the march for Kentucky. The 
Confederate army enters the State. Service in front of Lex- 
ington. Efforts to embarrass the retreat of Federal General 
Morgan. Fight at Augusta. Retreat of the army from 
Kentucky. Captures Lexington, 

"Chapter ii. Morgan's retreat through Southwestern 
Kentucky. At Gallatin again. Scouting and ambuscades. 
Driven from Gallatin. A week's fighting around Lebanon 
(Tenn.). Battle of Hartsville. 

" Chapter 12. December raid into Kentucky. Capture of 
Elizabethtown. Fight at the Rolling Fork. Escape from 
the toils. 

" Chapter 13. Service during the winter of 1863-4. Clark's 
raid into Kentucky. Battle of Milton, Defeat at Snow Hill. 

"Chapter 14. Service in Tennessee, and on the Cumber- 
land River in Kentucky. Fight at Greasy Creek. Active 
scouting. The Division starts for Ohio. Crossing the 
Cumberland in face of the enemy. Fight at Columbia, Green 
River, and Lebanon. Crossing the Ohio. The militia object- 
ing. Fight with the gunboats. March through Indiana and 
Ohio. Detour around Cincinnati. Defeat at Buffington. 

"Chapter 16. Services of the remnant of Morgan's com- 
mand while the General was in prison. Reception of General 
Morgan by the people of the South. He is assigned to com- 
mand in Southwestern Virginia. Fight with Averill. Action 
at Dublin Depot. Last raid into Kentucky. Capture of Mt. 
Sterling. Severe engagement next day. Capture of Lexing- 
ton. Success at Cynthiana. Retreat from Kentucky." 

It thus appears that every chapter records evading or 
escaping pursuers, or else defeat or retreat. 



Morgan's Raids 227 

The first raid made by Morgan into Kentucky occurred 
in July, 1862. His report is found in War Records, series 
I, vol. 16, pt. I, p. 76"/. His troops were his own regi- 
ment and a regiment of Georgia partisan rangers, a 
squadron of Texans, and two companies of Tennesseeans. 
He entered Kentucky near Glasgow, moved up to Leb- 
anon, and thence through Harrodsburg, Lawrenceburg, 
Versailles, Georgetown, Paris, and Winchester, to Rich- 
mond. On the way he encountered no force that was 
sufficient to resist his progress. The mention of the 
Home Guards is insignificant. At one place they at- 
tacked him. At another they undertook to oppose, but 
fled. At another he took seventy of them prisoners. 
He did not go to Frankfort, the capital of the State, 
because he learned there was a force there "of 2000 or 
3000 men consisting of Home Guards collected from the 
adjacent counties, and a few regular troops." He says 
he "dispersed about 1500 Home Guards." He men- 
tions being "welcomed with gladness," but says nothing 
of any flocking to his standard. Having arrived at 
Richmond, he says: 

' ' I had determined to make a stand at Richmond and await 
reinforcements, as the whole people appeared ready to rise and 
join me, but I received information that large bodies of cav- 
alry under General Clay Smith and Colonels Wolford, Met- 
calfe, Mundy, and Wynkoop were endeavoring to surround 
me at this place, so I moved on to Crab Orchard." 

At Crab Orchard he learned of orders to pursue 
him, and he moved on through Monticello back to 
Tennessee. 

Other reports show that the troops which gathered to 
oppose Morgan were directed by General J. T. Boyle, 
and were led by Colonels Wolford, Metcalfe, Mundy, 
Landrum, Hallisy, Maxwell, and Guthrie, all Kentucky 
officers, besides the organized Home Guards under Colo- 



228 Union Cause in Kentucky 

nels Wadsworth and Worthington and Captain Faulkner. 
Thus, the first raid was warded off from the capital of 
the State, nor did it reach the important city of Lexing- 
ton, but was confined to a passage through unimportant 
places. Nor could he "make a stand to await reinforce- 
ments," and the troops thus interfering with his designs 
were the organized Kentuckians. 

According to his report, he was in the State more than 
three weeks, and augmented his force by only 500 
recruits, which was an inconsiderable number considering 
that he was in his own State and the claims of being 
"welcomed with gladness," and the "readiness of the 
whole people to rise and join him," and considering, 
further, that he was compelled to retire from Richmond 
for fear of being surrounded by Kentucky Unionists, 
who had rallied and gathered under Kentucky leaders for 
that purpose. 

The second time Morgan came into Kentucky was in 
the same summer of 1862, appearing as the advance 
guard of the great invasion under Generals Bragg and 
Kirby Smith. There were no troops in the State to 
resist this great invasion, and for two months a con- 
siderable portion of Kentucky was occupied by the Con- 
federates. Their operations were confined to the country 
lying east of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. The 
events of this invasion have been considered in a separate 
chapter. In this place, however, it will be recalled that 
a strong demonstration was made toward Cincinnati by 
General Kirby Smith's forces, and that numerous troops 
gathered to protect that city. One of the incidents in 
that connection was the design of a portion of Morgan's 
troops to cross the Ohio River above Cincinnati, at 
Augusta, Kentucky, and move down upon the city. At 
Augusta they encountered the Union Home Guards 
under Dr. Joshua T. Bradford, and a desperate fight 
ensued. The design of crossing the river was frustrated. 



Morgan's Raids 229 

Some details of this sanguinary battle are given in 
CoWins' s Kentucky, vol. i, page 112. 

At the same time portions of Morgan's command under- 
took, in conjunction with the Confederate force which 
came out of Virginia under General Humphrey Marshall, 
to cut off the retreat of General George W. Morgan from 
Cumberland Gap. That incident has been mentioned in 
another chapter, but it is proper to say in this connection 
that General George W. Morgan successfully fought his 
way through, and that half of his command consisted of 
Kentucky troops. 

It is well-known history that after the battle of 
Perry ville, on the 8th of October, 1862, the larger forces 
under Generals Bragg and Kirby Smith retreated out 
of Kentucky through the mountains of East Ten- 
nessee, obstructing the roads behind them by felling 
trees. Morgan's cavalry, however, made their way 
across the State westwardly as far as Hopkinsville, and 
thence returned to Tennessee. This is denominated in 
General Duke's history as "Morgan's Retreat through 
Southwestern Kentucky." 

A conspicuous feature of this great occasion when 
Morgan was in Kentucky was the disappointment the 
Confederates received over their reception. Although 
great Confederate armies were in the State, and Morgan's 
cavalry operated from the mountains to the west end, 
and although a great part of the State was controlled by 
them for nearly two months, it does not appear that they 
materially augmented their forces by Kentucky volun- 
teers. The people were called upon to rise and join their 
' ' liberators, ' ' but they did not respond. On the contrary, 
at that very time numerous Union regiments formed 
and organized, which thereafter took a prominent part in 
repelling future raids. The Kentucky people were ap- 
pealed to, and they were threatened with conscription. 
They were insensible to the appeal and the threat, and 



230 Union Cause in Kentucky 

forthwith rallied to the flag of the Union in many new 
regimental organizations. 

Morgan's third raid into Kentucky was in December 
of the same year, 1862. On this occasion he struck the 
Louisville and Nashville Railroad above Munfordville and 
proceeded northward. His report is in War Records, series 
I, vol. 20, p. 154. He says that "just as his rear regiments 
were crossing Rolling Fork, a large force of the enemy — 
consisting of cavalry and several pieces of artillery which 
had followed us from Elizabethtown — came up and began 
to shell the ford at which the troops were crossing." In 
the fight which ensued Colonel Basil Duke was disabled. 
"Colonel Breckinridge then took command and main- 
tained the position until Colonel Clark's regiment had 
crossed the river, when I ordered him to fall back, which 
he accomplished in good order and without loss." That 
night Morgan's command reached Bardstown. The next 
night it was at Springfield. There he learned of "vastly 
superior forces" gathering, and it was but a short time 
when he crossed Cumberland River at Burkesville, and 
was out of the State. 

We now turn to the report of Colonel John M. Harlan 
in the same volume, page 137, and there ascertain who 
it was that halted Morgan's expedition at Rolling Fork. 
When Harlan learned of Morgan's expedition against the 
Louisville and Nashville Railroad he was at Gallatin, 
Tennessee. He obtained a train of a few cars and pro- 
ceeded up the road with all expedition. In his com- 
mand were the Thirteenth Kentucky Infantry, Major 
Hobson ; the Twelfth Kentucky Cavalry, Colonel Shanks; 
the Fourth Kentucky Infantry, Colonel Croxton ; the 
Tenth Kentucky Infantry, Lieutenant-Colonel Hays. 
Colonel Harlan says in his report that he came upon 
the enemy at Rolling Fork, and 

" from a high hill I saw quite distinctly a very large body of 



Morgan's Raids 231 

cavalry formed in line of battle near the river. Their officers 
were riding along their line, apparently preparing to give us 
battle. Knowing that Morgan had a larger force than I had, 
I proceeded cautiously, and yet as expeditiously as the nature 
of the ground and the circumstances admitted. My men were 
formed in two lines. Skirmishers were thrown out from both 
infantry and cavalry, covering our whole front, and were 
ordered to advance and engage the enemy, the whole line fol- 
lowing in close supporting distance. The firing commenced 
on the part of the rebels on our left. It was promptly and 
vigorously responded to by my skirmishers and the artillery. 
After a while the rebels were driven away and they then made 
some demonstrations to occupy an eminence on my right. To 
meet this movement the Tenth Indiana, Colonel Carroll, was 
ordered to occupy that eminence, from which four companies 
were ordered to clear the woods on the right of my line. The 
Fourth Kentucky, Colonel Croxton, Fourteenth Ohio, Colo- 
nel Este, Seventy-Fourth Indiana, Colonel Chapman, were 
ordered to form on the left of the Tenth Indiana. A section 
of the battery was ordered to occupy the eminence, and the 
Tenth Kentucky, Colonel Hays, ordered to support it. This 
left the Thirteenth Kentucky, Major Hobson, on my left, sup- 
porting the section of the battery stationed there. The firing 
now became general all along the right of our line of skirmish- 
ers, but the rebels, after an obstinate resistance, broke and fled 
precipitately in every direction. Some struck out into the 
woods, some went up the river as far as New Haven, some 
swam the river with their horses. Further pursuit that even- 
ing was impracticable, and, I may say, impossible in the 
exhausted state of my men, they having left Munfordville 
Sunday morning and came up with the enemy the succeeding 
day at one o'clock — 43 miles distant." 

Colonel Harlan further says in his report : 

"I claim for my command that it saved the Rolling Fork 
bridge, and most probably prevented any attempt to destroy 
the bridge at Shepherdsville,thus saving from destruction prop- 
erty of immense value, and preventing the utter destruction 



232 Union Cause in Kentucky 

of the line of railway by which our army at Nashville is mainly 
supplied. And I submit whether the attack on Morgan's forces, 
the timely arrival of my command at Rolling Fork, did not 
prevent a raid upon other important points in Kentucky, It is 
very certain that after my command drove the rebel chieftain 
across the Rolling Fork in such a precipitate manner, he 
abandoned the railroad, and very soon thereafter fled from the 
State, hotly pursued by other forces." 

The "other forces" mentioned were under command of 
Colonel William A. Hoskins, of the Twelfth Kentucky 
Infantry. His report is in the same volume, page 141. 
He mentions as in his command a squadron of the Sixth 
Kentucky Cavalry, under Major Gratz; a squadron of the 
Ninth Kentucky Cavalry under Major Rue. The Twelfth 
Kentucky Infantry and a portion of the Sixteenth Ken- 
tucky Infantry also joined in the pursuit, but it was easy 
for a retreating cavalry force to escape, and it did so, not 
staying to continue further work of destruction. 

Thus for the third time Morgan was met by Kentucky 
troops, and, as stated in the headings of General Duke's 
twelfth chapter, "escaped from the toils." 

Colonel Harlan's prompt and expeditious movement 
up the railroad all the way from Tennessee, and his 
attack at Rolling Fork, ended the raid and turned it into 
a retreat. His success is, as usual, attributed to "over- 
whelming numbers." He had with him such men of his 
brigade as could be hurried to the point, and Shaler says 
Morgan's force was 3000. Harlan says in his report 
that he knew Morgan had a larger force than his own. 
Yet Shaler, to account for the discomfiture of Morgan 
and the checking of the raid, says Morgan was attacked 
by "about seven thousand Federal troops." (P. 327.) 
He does not mention Colonel Harlan nor does he tell that 
Morgan retreated rapidly out of the State pursued by 
other Kentucky troops. Shaler's work is a History 
of Kentucky ^ but to him the Confederates constituted 



Morgan's Raids 233 

Kentucky in the war period, excepting as he names the 
Union commanders for purposes of censure. 

The fourth raid of Morgan into Kentucky was the 
celebrated one which extended into Indiana and 
Ohio. 

About the ist day of July, 1863, Morgan crossed the 
Cumberland River at Burkesville, and proceeded north- 
wardly through Columbia to Lebanon ; thence, turning 
westwardly, passed through Springfield and Bardstown, 
and on to the Ohio River at Brandenburg, where he 
crossed, and proceeded through Indiana and Ohio until 
captured. 

Nothing is shown, by any reports, to have been accom- 
plished by this raid. Collins in his history calls it 
"startling in its conception, masterly and terrible in its 
progress and execution, but fatally disastrous in its 
results." (Vol. i., p. 127.) What it was, except a long 
ride ending in capture, is not shown in any reports. No 
important place was touched, and nothing was effected 
except the excitement incidental to such a passage 
through the country. Nor was it favorably commented on 
by the Confederate authorities. 

The raid has always been called "remarkable." But 
it is a fact susceptible of the clearest demonstration that 
the pursuit of Morgan was far more remarkable than the 
raid. The telegram announcing the capture of Morgan 
was from General J. M. Shackelford, a distinguished 
Kentucky officer, and dated July 26, 1863. Shackelford's 
official report, made a few days after, tells briefly the 
story of the pursuit. {War Records, series i, vol. 23, pt. 
I, p. 639.) General E. H. Hobson, another distinguished 
Kentucky officer, who was the ranking officer in the 
pursuit, also made his report, {/did. p. 658.) These 
reports relate the facts, though they have never been 
carried into the histories of Kentucky which treat of the 
raid. The usual silence of the Kentucky Unionists 



234 Union Cause in Kentucky 

touching their services in the war, which has been 
mentioned, is applicable in this instance. 

In CoUins's Kentucky (vol. i., p. 126) a short account 
is given of the raid, in which it appears that when Morgan 
had reached the vicinity of Cincinnati, "Brigadier-Generals 
Edward H. Hobson and James M. Shackelford, and 
Colonel Frank Wolford, with the First, Third, Eighth, 
Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Kentucky Cavalry, and per- 
haps other Federal troops, are following close after Mor- 
gan, but do not seem to gain much on his extraordinary 
travelling speed and endurance." Shaler adds nothing to 
what Collins says. Both, however, condemn the Federal 
officers for not recognizing a "peculiar surrender " which 
Morgan made to a " militia captain," who was not a 
militia captain, or even a militia-man, but in fact noth- 
ing but a citizen who was in Morgan's custody at the 
time. 

Some details of the pursuit will here be given. 

When it became known that Morgan was threatening 
to advance into Kentucky General Shackelford was at 
Russellville. He took hjs command to Glasgow at once, 
June 26th. From thence he proceeded to Marrowbone, 
ten miles from Burkesville, which is on the Cumberland 
River, and his force united with that of General Hobson, 
which had moved down from Columbia. Before the 
troops were aware of it, Morgan crossed the Cumberland 
at Burkesville, and moved rapidly toward Columbia. He 
fought unsuccessfully at Green River Bridge July 4th, 
crossed the stream at another place and went on to 
Lebanon, where he encountered a portion of a regiment 
under Colonel Charles S. Hanson, a Kentucky ofificer. 
He was not again delayed in his movements until he 
reached the Ohio River. 

From Marrowbone, Shackelford's and Hanson's com- 
mands followed the track of Morgan through Columbia to 
Lebanon. Without delay the two officers passed on 



Morgan's Raids 235 

through Springfield and Bardstown and reached Branden- 
burg soon after Morgan crossed the Ohio. They imme- 
diately crossed at the same place and the pursuit went on 
through Indiana and Ohio. 

The troops which have been mentioned were the princi- 
pal part of the forces — the First, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, 
and Twelfth Kentucky Cavalry, and a portion of the 
Third Kentucky Cavalry. The First Kentucky Cavalry 
was led by Colonel Wolford, the Eighth by Colonel 
Benjamin H. Bristow, the Ninth by Colonel R. T. Jacob, 
the Eleventh by Colonel Holeman, the Twelfth by Colonel 
Eugene Crittenden, the Third Cavalry by Major Wolfley. 
At first there were some infantry, but they could not 
follow in pursuit. Some other regiments of cavalry, in- 
cluding the Eighth and Ninth Michigan, under command 
of Colonel W. P. Sanders, a Kentucky officer, joined the 
pursuers in Indiana, they having moved rapidly to Madi- 
son, Indiana, from the central part of Kentucky. 

The troops under Shackelford and Hobson which 
started from the Cumberland River were the ones which 
ran down the great raider and captured him. They 
were Kentucky regiments mainly. Their leaders were 
well-known Kentuckians — Shackelford, Hobson, Jacob, 
Bristow, Crittenden, Wolford, Holeman, W. O. Boyle, 
Sanders, Ward, Wolfley. General Shackelford in his 
report thus mentions the officers of his command : 

"Colonel Kautz, who commanded the Seventh and Second 
Ohio, Colonel Jacob, Ninth Kentucky, Colonel Crittenden 
and Major Delfosse, of the Twelfth Kentucky, Colonel Bristow 
and Lieutenant-Colonel Holloway, and Major Starling, of the 
Eighth Kentucky, Major Wolfley, of the Third Kentucky, 
Lieutenant-Colonel Adams, of the First Kentucky, Lieutenant- 
Colonel Melton of the Second E. Tenn. Infantry, Major Car- 
penter, Second E. Tenn. Infantry, Lieutenant-Colonel Ross, 
Forty-fifth Ohio Mounted Infantry, Captain Powers and 
Lieutenant Longfellow of the Fifth Indiana Cavalry, Captain 



236 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Dodd, Third Ohio Cavalry, Captain Kinney, Third Ohio, 
Captain Ward, Third Kentucky Cavalry, and Adjutant Car- 
penter of the First Kentucky Cavalry, deserve the gratitude 
of the whole country for their energy and gallantry," 

In his report of the capture of Morgan and Morgan's 
claim to have surrendered on terms to a "militia 
captain," Shackelford says he told Morgan 

" that we had followed him thirty days and nights; that his 
demand could not be considered a moment; that I regarded 
his surrender to the militia captain under such circumstances 
as not only absurd and ridiculous, but unfair and illegal, and 
that I would not recognize it at all." 

The manner of the surrender to the "militia captain" 
is given in a communication of Governor Tod of Ohio to 
General Morgan {War Records, series i, vol. 23, pt. i, p. 
814), in which he says: 

"Said Burbick is not and never was a militia officer in 
the service of this State; that he was captured by you 
and travelled with you some considerable distance before 
your surrender." 

Burbick's statement to the same effect is found in the 
same volume, p. 809, in which he says: 

"I was captain of no militia whatever, or any other 
force of men, but was appointed that Sunday morning as 
Captain by the men that went out with me on horseback, 
there being some fifteen or twenty in number." 

If the capture had been by some fresh troops springing 
into the chase from some impossible source, it would not 
have been so remarkable. But such was not the case. 
The captors were the men who started on the pursuit at 
Burkesville, on the Cumberland River. As soon as they 
could assemble for the purpose, they moved on the track 
Morgan had taken, up through Columbia and Lebanon, 
on through Springfield to Bardstown. They could not 
divine that so extraordinary a thing would occur as the 



Morgan's Raids 237 

passage of the Ohio River. They naturally looked for 
the chase to be southwestwardly through Kentucky. 
When word came that Morgan had gone to Brandenburg 
and was crossing the river, a push was made to arrive 
there before the crossing was effected. They were not in 
time, and there was nothing to do but to follow on through 
Indiana. They crossed at the same place and pushed 
on, following the course Morgan took. Where it would 
lead to they could not guess, but without halt or rest the 
pursuit continued. Day and night they rode; horses 
and men gave out but others closed up, and Shackel- 
ford gave no respite. Indiana was crossed and then Ohio, 
and on the far side of the last named State at last the 
pursuers gained upon the pursued. At first they gathered 
up many stragglers, then they came upon the main body, 
passed beyond it by side roads, turned, and enveloped the 
greater part of the command. 

Morgan himself had passed on further, but the pursuit 
made no halt. At last he was run down and captured 
with the remaining men. This was nine hundred miles 
from the point of starting. Morgan had made a great 
ride, accomplished nothing, and was a prisoner. The 
Union regiments of Kentucky, with their indomitable 
leaders, had made a greater ride, run down Morgan and 
his men, and captured them, making the pursuit far 
more remarkable than the raid. 

Without extending this account further it will be seen 
that the troops which made that capture rode from Rus- 
sellville and other points to Burkesville, where Morgan 
crossed Cumberland River, and from thence followed the 
pursuit. They were close upon Morgan at the Ohio River. 
Then with hard riding, night and day, across the States 
of Ohio and Indiana, they at last outrode, turned upon 
the pursued, surrounded them, and captured them. It 
is claimed for Morgan that at one point he made ninety 
miles in thirty-five hours. If this is true, what must have 



238 Union Cause in Kentucky 

been the riding capacity of the pursuers who succeeded in 
overtaking a force moving so rapidly ? 

A just consideration of the whole incident makes it clear 
that the pursuit was more remarkable than the raid. 
Thus for the fourth time Morgan was discomfited by the 
Union soldiers of Kentucky. 

The fifth and last raid of Morgan into Kentucky was 
made in the summer of 1864. Having escaped after his 
capture, he was given a command in southwestern Vir- 
ginia, and in the month of June, 1864, he entered Ken- 
tucky through Pound Gap, in the Cumberland range, and 
moved rapidly in the direction of Lexington. General 
Burbridge, in anticipation of such a movement, was mak- 
ing his way toward Pound Gap. In the command of 
General Burbridge was Colonel John Mason Brown, one 
of the most energetic and intelligent oflficers in the service. 
He was commanding a brigade in which was his own reg- 
iment, the Forty-fifth Kentucky. Colonel Brown ascer" 
tained that Morgan had entered the State and was headed 
for the central parts. He counselled a rapid return, which 
at once commenced. Brown leading the advance. By 
moving with extraordinary rapidity, making ninety miles 
in twenty-four hours, the Federal troops began to come 
up with Morgan. On the 12th day of June Morgan had 
advanced toward Georgetown, and sent a force ahead 
to capture Frankfort and secure a crossing of Kentucky 
River by the bridge at that point, but this force was met 
by a company of State troops and one or two companies 
of enrolled militia hastily called out by the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral, D. W. Lindsay; and Morgan, finding that his cross- 
ing at Frankfort would be seriously resisted, deflected 
to Cynthiana, where the Federal troops under Bur- 
bridge, Brown, and Hanson — all Kentucky officers —fell 
upon him, and practically broke up his entire com- 
mand, capturing many and driving the wreck of his 
force out of the State through the mountains. The 



Morgan's Raids 239 

Kentucky regiments thus engaged were as follows : Thir- 
teenth Cavalry, Thirty-fifth Mounted Infantry, Forty- 
fifth Mounted Infantry, Fortieth Mounted Infantry, 
Forty-seventh Mounted Infantry, Twenty-sixth Mounted 
Infantry, Thirtieth Mounted Infantry, Eleventh Cavalry, 
Thirty-seventh Mounted Infantry, Thirty-ninth Mouated 
Infantry. 

Collins says of this event; 

"Part of Morgan's forces escaped through Scott County, 
while he led the main force, after paroling some 600 prisoners 
taken on the 10th, on the Clayville and Augusta road through 
Mayslick, Mason County, on the same night, and Flemings- 
burg on the next morning. His raid proved exceedingly 
disastrous." (Vol. i., p. 135.) 

General Bragg, in a report dated July 2d, says: 

"The accounts received so far do not indicate any satisfac- 
tory results of the movement into Kentucky by General Morgan. 
Should he ever return with his command it will as usual be 
disorganized or unfit for service until again armed, equipped, 
and disciplined. The large number of prisoners we always lose 
by these raiding expeditions has been the source of great 
evil." 

Morgan says in his official report that his intention was 
to break the railroad from Cincinnati to Lexington, and 
then strike for the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. 
{War Records, Serial No. yy, p. 65.) 

Thus for the fifth time Morgan's plans were defeated, 
and he was driven from the State by the organized 
regiments of Kentucky Unionists. Kentucky troops 
frustrated his purpose to destroy the railroads in central 
Kentucky and then pass on and destroy the Louisville 
and Nashville Railroad, and forced him back before he 
accomplished anything. 

It is not the purpose in this volume to deal with any of 
the conduct of Morgan and his men, but only to show that, 



240 Union Cause in Kentucky 

while historians have heralded his exploits as so ex- 
traordinary, in every instance when he raided his own 
State, having with him men who knew the roads every- 
where, he was met and successfully resisted by the 
Unionists of Kentucky.' 

The purpose is to show that the noted raider, whose 
reputation has been exalted by such historians as Shaler, 
was met and handled by the men of his own State, whose 
services have not seemed to be worthy of mention in the 
biased minds of these writers. 

It must not be supposed that troops which could be 
rallied to contend with Morgan in Kentucky were 
detained in the State simply for that purpose. They had 
to deal with other raiders, and bands of partisan rangers, 
any and all of whom would appear upon the scene unex- 
pectedly, and troops were constantly on the alert to pro- 
tect the State from the whole combination. Nor must 
it be supposed, when several regiments of Kentucky 
Union soldiers are named as engaging in some special 
conflict, that the number of regiments represents that 
many thousand troops. The regiments were broken up 
into detachments, operating in many different places, 
and when the regiment is mentioned it was a fact in 
nearly all cases that only a portion, perhaps only a frag- 
ment, was present. For this reason the presence of 
quite a number of regiments by name might be indicated 
without making the "overwhelming numbers" so often 
mentioned by the historians, to account for the defeat 
of the Confederate enterprises. 

Shaler and others who have written the histories of 
Kentucky adopt the claims made for the superior prowess 
of Confederate troops and record them as historic facts, but 
when the records of the war are examined it is found 
that for courage and endurance and efficiency no soldiers 

' War Records, Serial No. 77, pp. 74 to 84. 



Morgan's Raids 241 

could excel those who made up the Union organizations 
in Kentucky. Nor were there any leaders more vigilant 
and persistent, or who led troops with more energy and 
enthusiasm and devotion, than the Union generals of 
Kentucky and the officers of these organizations. It is 
not history but sentiment that would seek to exalt the 
qualities of soldiership of either side in the conflict over 
the other, and when the facts according to the records 
are considered no such distinction appears to have 
existed. 
16 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE GUERRILLA EVIL 

IT is necessary to mention with some detail the char- 
acter and work of guerrillas in Kentucky during the 
war, especially toward the end, in order to remove the 
impression made on many minds by writers of so-called 
history that the Kentucky Unionists, in one way or an- 
other, were responsible for a very deplorable condition of 
affairs which existed. 

Great consideration was shown to Kentucky by the au- 
thorities at Washington in the selection of officers for 
local command in the State. General Robert Anderson 
of Sumter fame was a Kentuckian, and the first officer 
placed in charge, General William Nelson, was also a Ken- 
tuckian. In July, 1862, General J. T. Boyle was placed 
in command of the District of Kentucky. He was one 
of the most distinguished citizens of the State, the son 
of one of her greatest judges, well acquainted with the 
people, and most highly esteemed. Other Kentucky offi- 
cers were kept on duty in the State, and in the sections 
where they were best known. Among these were Gen- 
eral E. H. Hobson, General J. M. Shackelford, General 
S. S. Fry, General E. H. Murray; also, Colonels Charles 
H. Hanson, T. B. Fairleigh, Marc Mundy, Cicero Max- 
well, John Mason Brown, John H. Ward, Saunders 
Bruce, were at different times assigned to commands in 
the State. The administration of military affairs was 
thus largely entrusted to men well known and of the 
highest character. On the 15th of February General S. 

242 



The Guerrilla Evil 243 

G. Burbridge was placed in command of the district. 
He had made a fine reputation as a soldier in the field, 
and no officer was more highly regarded. He raised the 
Twenty-sixthKentucky Infantry and led it as Colonel until 
made General. He commanded a brigade in 1862 when 
General Bragg entered Kentucky; was in like command 
under General Sherman at Chickasaw Bayou, under 
Grant at Vicksburg, and under Banks afterward. He 
was a native of Logan County, Kentucky, and his ap- 
pointment was regarded as eminently appropriate. 

During his administration of affairs the work of guer- 
rillas in Kentucky was so active, and so much trouble 
was given by them, he was ordered to deal with them 
and their aiders and abettors and sympathizers with great 
severity.' It must be remembered that the great major- 
ity of the people of Kentucky were Unionists. From 
the Union homes the young men had gone out as Union 
soldiers, leaving their homes without protection. There- 
fore, we naturally find an order of General Grant to Bur- 
bridge, beginning as follows: 

"That habit of raiding parties of rebel cavalry visiting 
towns, villages, and farms where there are no Federal 
forces, pillaging Union families, having become preva- 
lent," etc. (directions being then given to abate the evil). 

Not only did these raiding parties mistreat the Union 
population of Kentucky, but made war upon isolated 
bodies of Union troops, government stores, railroads, 
bridges, and all persons and property in any wise con- 
nected with or used by the Federal forces. 

Burbridge's rough handling of these raiders and their 
aiders and abettors brought down upon him the maledic- 
tions of the Confederate element in Kentucky, which 
never did from the beginning to the end of the war come 
to realize that the Union side was rightfully in control in 

' See Appendix, § 18, p. 253. 



244 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Kentucky, but always acted as though they believed 
Kentucky was a Confederate State, and that the 
Unionists were intruders. 

It would require a volume to deal with the administra- 
tion of Burbridge in detail. He published his own defence 
against what he called " vituperation heaped upon his 
head," in which he copied the orders under which he 
acted. He also published reports of various Confederate 
officers charging each other with bad conduct and denying 
that he had done wrong. 

It is not the purpose to enter into any controversy 
about Burbridge in this work, but it is necessary to show 
with what a desperate enemy it was his fortune to have 
to deal, in order to explain the situation in which others 
were placed as well as he. 

The principal complaint against Burbridge was that he 
put in practice retaliatory measures, and caused men to be 
shot for the killing of Unionists by guerrillas. Retalia- 
tion is one of the incidents of all wars. It was practised 
on both sides in our great struggle, and it is one of the 
saddest features of war. JefTerson Davis, in his history, 
tells how he directed "that Major-General Hunter and 
Brigadier-General Phelps should be no longer held and 
treated as public enemies of the Confederate States, but 
as outlaws," to be held, if captured, for execution as 
felons. 

He also says he declared General Ben, F. Butler a felon, 
to be no longer treated as a public enemy, but "a felon 
deserving capital punishment," and in the event of his 
capture the oflficer in command should cause him to be 
immediately executed by hanging." 

" These measures of retaliation," says Mr. Davis, "were 
in conformity with the usages of war and were adopted 
to check and punish the cruelty of the adversary."* 

■ See Appendix, § 19, p. 354. 



The Guerrilla Evil 245 

Burbridge was practising retaliation, and was acting 
under the orders of his superiors, and it may be said of 
his measures, as well as those adopted by Mr. Davis, that 
they were "to check and punish the cruelty of the adver- 
sary." The language is as applicable to the one case 
as to the other. 

Burbridge found the State of Kentucky full of guerril- 
las — absolutely overrun by them. He caused captured 
men who had been engaged in guerrilla operations to be 
taken to the spot where the Unionists were killed and 
there executed. He could not have taken any but 
avowed Confederate soldiers, if he took any at all, for 
every guerrilla captured claimed to be in the Confederate 
service, not excepting even the notorious Sue Mundy 
(Jerome Clark). (Collins, i., 157.) 

The complaint, therefore, would be much more justly 
made against the principle of retaliation which both sides 
practised than against any particular officer who carried 
out the practice which Mr. Davis says was " in conformity 
with the usages of war." If retaliation is inseparable 
from a condition of war, it only goes to show what cruel- 
ties and hardships belong to such condition, and ought 
to serve to deter men from rushing too hastily into war. 

But it must not be supposed that Burbridge was the 
only Federal officer in Kentucky charged with offences 
at the time, and by the writers of history since. 

From the beginning it was charged that Kentucky was 
under military despotism. Every Federal officer in con- 
trol was made out to be unworthy for some reason. 
Abuse was heaped upon all without discrimination, and 
these ill-tempered criticisms of the war period have been 
duly reiterated by the writers of history. 

Shaler says : 

"The Federal commanders had undertaken to regulate a 
great many matters that did not properly concern them. The 



246 Union Cause in Kentucky 

principal offender was Brigadier-General Boyle, of Louisville, 
commmanding the Provost Guard forces in Kentucky, This 
man was much more vigorous in his dealings with citizens than 
with soldiers, and for a time carried a high hand as a tyrant in 
Kentucky." 

He also says (p. 320): 

"The action of men like Boyle did a great deal to turn 
many men against the Federal authority. They had 
entered on the war to preserve the laws that these cheap 
brigadiers treated with contempt." 

General Boyle preceded General Burbridge. Shaler 
characterizes Burbridge as brutal. Burbridge was suc- 
ceeded by General John M. Palmer, of Illinois, a Ken- 
tuckian by birth, and an honorable man and officer. Yet 
Shaler says of Palmer that, "though he fell under the 
same influences which had guided Burbridge in his course, 
he never disgraced his calling." ' He says General 
C. C. Gilbert was guilty of a high-handed outrage at 
one time, and that " greatly to the disgrace of the 
Union arms" Shackelford refused to observe John Mor- 
gan's surrender to a man although he was in fact no 
officer, nor even a military man. 

In such manner a writer of history, echoing the intem- 
perate speeches made in the anger of the hour, carries 
them into the printed page and into the shelves of the 
libraries of the country, and thus blackens the character 
of the Union men of Kentucky who struggled through 
appalling difficulties to uphold the Union and the cause 
of our country, while he has only words of extravagant 
praise for John Morgan and all his men, and all other 
Confederates. 

The unjust comments of Shaler are not founded upon 
any record. Shaler is quoted in Smith's History, but 
when the documentary history of the war is examined, 

' See Appendix, § 20, p. 355. 



The Guerrilla Evil 247 

and when even CoUins's laboriously gathered "annals" 
are examined, no foundation for these comments is found. 

As another instance of Shaler's echoing the bitter talk 
of the war instead of writing history, he is especially 
severe on the Federal provost marshals. Nothing 
appears upon any record against them, but doubtless 
there were oral criminations, as there were about every 
possible phase of Federal control in the State of 
Kentucky. His language is: 

"There can be no doubt that the people of Kentucky 
endured far more outrage from the acts of the Federal 
provost marshals than they did from all the acts of 
legitimate war put together." (P. 353.) 

Shaler also places the Union Home Guards of Ken- 
tucky on the same plane with guerrillas, the sole basis 
being that in one item oi Collins' s Anna h it is stated that 
General Burbridge issued an order to his troops, including 
the Home Guards, against committing outrages, as had 
been reported. It is not uncommon for commanders to 
issue such orders, and for this one instance Shaler accuses 
the Home Guards, who were remarkably well behaved, 
and really had no charges against them, according to the 
records, of being so bad as to be classed with guerrillas. 

The injustice of such history makes it necessary, there- 
fore, to show who the guerrillas were, who made such a 
desperate condition of affairs in Kentucky; also, to show 
what they did, and this will be done from citations from 
the authentic records, and also from CoUins's Annals. 

Great efforts have been made to make it appear that 
the guerrillas who infested Kentucky during the war 
belonged to one side as well as the other. They have 
been called "deserters from both sides," and "freeboot- 
ers" from the ranks of the Unionists as well as Confeder- 
ates. It is easy to write words down, and easy to say 
anything, but there is nothing in the records upon which 
to base the statement. On the other hand, the authori- 



248 Union Cause in Kentucky 

ties are abundant that the guerrillas were acting under 
the authority of the Confederate government. They 
were called out, organized, and sent out for the purpose 
of damaging the Union cause. They made war on 
Unionists, and upon Union soldiers, and upon the prop- 
erty of the Federal government. One writer, whose 
object was to show up General Burbridge as a "miscreant 
of all colors," said that Burbridge "chose to assume that 
the guerrilla bands were acting under the orders and 
receiving the protection of the Confederate commanders." 
The same writer pays a high tribute to Governor Thomas 
E. Bramlette, as a man of great intellectual force, 
courage, and fairness. Yet it was Governor Bramlette 
who issued a proclamation holding all " rebel sympa- 
thizers" responsible for guerrilla raids. He requests the 
military commandants in the State to arrest and hold 
responsible "rebel sympathizers," when guerrilla out- 
rages are perpetrated. The historian Collins denounces 
this for its severity, saying, "It is a sad state of things 
that suggests, and sadder still that tolerates, such unwar- 
rantable assumptions of executive power." Yet this was 
Governor Bramlette's proclamation. (Collins, vol. i., 
p. 130.) 

We may as well give this proclamation of Governor 
Bramlette in full. It is as follows : 

" Executive Department, 
Frankfort, Ky., Jan. 4, 1864. 

" The frequent outrages perpetrated in various parts of the 
State by lawless bands of marauders can in large degree be 
traced to the active aid of rebel sympathizers in our midst, as 
their neglect to furnish to military commandants the informa- 
tion in their possession which would lead to the defeat and 
capture of such marauders. 

" Sympathizers with the rebellion who, while enjoying pro- 
tection from the government, abuse the leniency extended to 
them by concealing the movements of rebel guerrillas, by 



The Guerrilla Evil 249 

giving them information, affording them shelter, supplying 
them with provisions, and otherwise encouraging and foment- 
ing private raids, are in criminal complicity with all the out- 
rages perpetrated by the marauders whom they secretly 
countenance. 

** It is in the power of persons whose sympathies are with the 
rebellion to prevent guerrilla raids almost invariably, by 
furnishing to military ofificers of the United States or State of 
Kentucky the information which experience has proved them 
to be, as a general thing, possessed of. 

" If all would unite, as is their duty, in putting down guer- 
rillas, we would soon cease to be troubled with their raids. 
A neglect to afford all assistance and information which 
may aid in defeating the designs of marauding parties can 
but be construed as a culpable and active assistance to our 
enemies. 

" I therefore request that the various military commandants 
in the State of Kentucky will, in every instance where a loyal 
citizen is taken off by bands of guerrillas, immediately arrest 
at least five of the most prominent and active rebel sympa- 
thizers in the vicinity of such outrage, for every loyal man 
taken by guerrillas. These sympathizers should be held as 
hostages for the safe and speedy return of the loyal citizen. 
Where there are disloyal relatives of guerrillas, they should be 
the chief sufferers. Let them learn that if they refuse to exert 
themselves actively for the assistance and protection of the 
loyal, they must expect to reap the just fruits of their complic- 
ity with the enemies of our own State and people," 

The term "partisan ranger" was often used in the 
records of the period interchangeably with the term 
* * guerrilla. ' ' Both had the same object in view ; and that 
object was the injury of everybody and everything per- 
taining to the Union cause. Those who care nothing for 
the records which were made during the war, and who 
write and speak unsupported assertions for facts, cannot 
make history by so doing. The history of the guerrillas of 



250 Union Cause in Kentucky 

our Civil War is found in the records of the Confederate 
Congress, in the communications made by the Confeder- 
ate leaders, and in other documents of that period. 
Extracts from these will be given, enough to establish the 
fact that partisan rangers and guerrillas were expressly 
authorized by the Confederate authorities; that they 
were expressly sent out to do precisely that which the 
guerrillas in fact did; that the Confederate commanders 
used the terms "partisan rangers" and "guerrillas" inter- 
changeably; that under these designations these bands 
made war upon the cause of the Union. 

It will be shown that the work mapped out for and 
undertaken by the ''partisan rangers" was precisely that 
which the guerrillas were engaged in doing in Ken- 
tucky. They were "independent and separate com- 
mands," commissioned to go forth in "guerrilla" bands, 
to operate in the enemy's lines, including Kentucky, 
where they did, in fact, operate so extensively. It 
would be puerile to contend that they were to operate 
upon friend and foe alike, and equally puerile to contend 
that they were sent out for any other purpose than to 
infest the country, and do all the damage they could. 

It will be seen that there was so much just complaint 
against these authorized "rangers," made by high officers 
in the Confederacy, on various grounds, that the Con- 
federate Congress passed an act repealing the act of 
authorization, with the proviso, however, that such bands 
as were operating "within the enemy's lines" were not 
to be discontinued — showing plainly that the evil of the 
ranger or guerrilla warfare was so detrimental to the Con- 
federate country it had to be stopped, but that Kentucky 
might continue to suffer under it. 

It will appear, too, that the Confederate authorities 
issued orders to correct the irregularities of the "rangers," 
excepting those "serving within the enemy's lines." 

One of the hardest tasks of the Kentucky Unionists 



The Guerrilla Evil 251 

during the war was to protect themselves and the State 
of Kentucky from the raids and lawlessness of these Con- 
federate guerrillas, or, as they were universally called in 
the war time, "rebel guerrillas." The Kentucky Union- 
ists in regularly organized regiments, and in regularly 
organized Home Guard companies, made unceasing war 
on guerrillas. They pursued and ran them down and 
captured them, and so effectually was the work done that 
all, or nearly all, of the notorious leaders were killed. 

On the other hand, it cannot be shown by any records of 
the period that any roving guerrilla bands were authorized 
by the State of Kentucky or by the general government. 
It cannot be shown by any record, Federal or Confederate, 
that there were any "Union guerrillas," and the effort 
to lay upon the Union Home Guards of Kentucky blame 
like that universally laid upon the "rebel guerrillas" can- 
not be supported by any records of the day. 

The following quotations make clear who the guerril- 
las were. Many more of like nature might be made, but 
these are deemed sufficient : 

"Adjutant and Inspector-General's Office, 
" Richmond, June i8, 1861. 
*'F. A. Briscoe, Esq., 

" Winchester, Va. 
Sir: — In reply to your letter of June 12, 1861, to Mr. F. A, 
Baldwin, in relation to organizing a guerrilla force, I am 
directed to say that such a force when organized, armed, and 
equipped will be received into service, and commissions issued 
to the officers thereof from this office so soon as advised of 
compliance with foregoing requirements. I am. Sir, 

" Respectfully, 

" Your obedient servant, 
"R. H. Chilton, 
"Assistant Adj. Genl." 
(^War Records, Serial No. 127, p. 395.) 

The following is an extract from a letter from William 



252 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Skeen, written to the Confederate Secretary of War, 
from Warm Springs, Virginia, June 30, 1861 : 

" When I had the honor of an interview with you some ten 
days ago upon the importance of establishing a guerrilla serv- 
ice in the northwest, I understood you to agree with the views 
presented, and that you would ask the concurrence of the 
President, and in the event of his approbation, that the 
service would be ordered. Since, I have waited anxiously a 
communication from you; anxiously because as a citizen of the 
northwest I am deeply interested not only in defeating the 
enemy but in whipping him by any and all means and as 
speedily as possible." {IVar Records^ Serial No. 127, p. 415.) 

This letter w^as answered as follows: 

" Confederate States of America, War Dep't, 
" Richmond, July 15, i86r. 
"William Skeen, Esq., 

" Warm Springs, Va. 
" Sir: — In reply to your letter of the 30th of June the Secre- 
tary of War directs me to say that a battalion raised for the 
war and armed will be accepted, but not otherwise. 

" Respectfully, 

" A. T. Bledsoe, 
" Chief of Bureau of War, 

"by J. B. Jones." 
{lb.. 478.) 

On the 13th of July, 1861, B. W. Blakewood wrote to 
the Confederate Secretary of War, saying: 

"Permit me, sir, to introduce to your consideration the 
advantages that would accrue from a regiment of mounted 
men on the guerrilla order." 

He then describes the kind of men, and says: 

"I should like to have the privilege of organizing a reg- 
iment on the above plan." {^Ib. 475.) 



The Guerrilla Evil 253 

To this letter the following answer was made : 

*' Confederate States of America, War Dep't, 
"July 20, 1861. 
"Col. B. W. Blakewood, 

" Spottswood Hotel, Richmond, Va. 
" Sir: — In reply to your letter of the 13th instant, I am 
directed by the Secretary of War to say that a regiment armed 
and equipped would be accepted, electing its own field 
officers. But no pledge can be given of the service it will be 
required to perform or of its field of operations. 

" Respectfully, 

"A. T. Bledsoe, 
'* Chief of Bureau of War." 
{lb., 491.) 

It might be supposed by those who, at the present 
time, claim to hold "guerrillas " to have been a lot of 
wretches, "deserters from both sides," and "condemned 
by both sides," that when propositions to organize "guer- 
rilla" regiments or companies or bands were made to the 
Confederate authorities they would have been indignantly 
spurned, but the foregoing correspondence shows the 
contrary, and the following is to the same effect : 

"Butler, Choctaw Co., Ala., July 26, 1861. 
"L. P. Walker, Esq. 

" Dear Sir: — Quite a number of men of undoubted respect- 
ability are anxious to serve the government on their own 
account. It is proposed to form a company or companies 
and proceed against the enemy in any manner that will cripple 
the enemy most, and do our government most service. It is 
further proposed in forming such companies and in going to 
war, in order to sustain such companies, to seize, take, and 
convey all and every kind of property captured to the use of 
such companies. In other words, such companies propose 
going and fighting without restraint and under no orders, and 
convey the property so captured to their own private use, 
thereby benefiting their own pecuniary circumstances, as 



254 Union Cause in Kentucky 

well as doing their own country good service by crippling the 
enemy." 

He asks if this would be allowed. ( War Records, Serial 
No. 127, p. 505.) 

Was this proposition rebuked ? Was there an indignant 
response to a plan so utterly sordid and villainous? 

The following is the respectful and encouraging reply 
from the Confederate War Ofifice : 

"Confederate States of America, War Dep't, 
" Richmond, Aug. 5, 1861. 
" Mr. D. M. K. Campbell, 

"Butler, Choctaw Co., Ala. 
'* Sir: — In reply to your communication of the 26th of July, 
I am directed by the Secretary of War to state that every 
citizen who can wield a weapon is needed now for the defence 
of this invaded country. There can scarcely be a doubt that 
ample opportunities will be afforded, both with policy and 
necessity, to retaliate in a legitimate and proper manner upon 
the despoilers of our people." 

Nevertheless, the letter goes on, all military organiza- 
tions must conform strictly to the laws and usages of 
civilized nations. They must be commissioned and paid 
by the government, and subject to its orders, in complete 
subordination to its authority. The letter then says: 

"It is true there is too much reason to apprehend the most 
barbarous conduct on the part of the Northern aggressors — 
conduct which may render it obligatory on our part to treat 
them with the utmost severity — and if this be the case you 
would have abundant opportunities to participate in the 
captures, forfeitures, and confiscations which must inevitably 
follow in the train of such a conflict inaugurated by the enemy. 
Then why should you not organize a corps of just such 
avengers, and be guided in all things by the wisdom and 
impartial adjudication of the government ? I would therefore 
suggest that your company be armed and tendered for the war 
in the usual way — not doubting that opportunities will be 



The Guerrilla Evil 255 

afforded for the exercise of the undaunted spirit of high-toned 
Southern retribution which seems to have inspired your 
proposition." {War Records, 127, p. 532.) 

On the 19th of March, 1862, there seems to have been 
a change in the manner of replying to propositions to 
organize such independent companies, as the following 
appears in the records : 

"Confederate States of America, War Dep't, 
" Richmond, Va., March 19, 1862. 
"Dr. R. G. Barkham, 

"Tarborough, N. C. 
" Sir: — Guerrilla companies are not recognized as part of the 
military organization of the Confederate States, and cannot be 
authorized by this department. 

** Respectfully, 

"J. P, Benjamin, 
** Acting Secretary of War." 

(Same March 20th to Captain Samuel P. Gresham, 
Forty-seventh Va. Regiment, Fredericksburg, Va. War 
Records, 127, p. 1008.) 

Very soon after this, however, the Confederate authori- 
ties were expressly authorized to employ troops, under 
the designation of ' ' partisan rangers, ' ' to operate after the 
fashion of guerrillas. So identical were the two that 
sometimes they went under one name and sometimes 
under the other. 

April 21, 1862, The Confederate Congress passed an 
act authorizing the President to commission ofificers "to 
form bands of partisan rangers, in companies, battalions, 
or regiments, either as cavalry or infantry. The com- 
panies, battalions, or regiments to be composed each of 
such numbers as the President may approve." {War 
Records, series 4, vol. i, p. 1094.) 

July 13, 1862, the Governor of North Carolina wrote to 
the Confederate Secretary of War on the subject of 



256 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

partisan rangers, mentioning the " large number of 
partisan rangers authorized or claimed to be authorized " 
as interfering with the enrolment of conscripts. He says : 
"Partisan rangers have a kind of separate and independ- 
ent command which is another attraction, and I might 
add, a source of detriment." 

July 29, 1862, General D. H. Hill, of the Confederate 
army, wrote to the Confederate Secretary of War as 
follows : 

"I cordially recommend the raising of guerrilla com- 
panies and the arming of them by the government, to 
operate in the counties of Nansemond and Gates, or 
wherever the infernal Yankees and their rascally Dutch 
allies can be found. The special duties of the guerrillas 
is to kill the murderers and plunderers wherever they show 
their villainous faces." 

This was indorsed by the Secretary of War : 

"Authorize General D. H. Hill to issue authority for 
companies of partisan rangers in the counties of Gates, 
N. C, and Nansemond, Va. Rolls to be returned to the 
Adjutant-General and the officers commissioned. No 
restrictions as to age." 

April 2, 1862, General Heth, of the Confederate army, 
addressed the following to the Governor of Virginia: 

"I feel it my duty to inform you of certain facts arising from 
the organization of the irregular force known as "rangers," 
authorized by an act of the Legislature of Virginia. The 
companies of this organization which have come under my 
observation are simply organized bands of robbers and 
plunderers, stealing the thunder of, and basing their claims to 
organization upon, the meritorious acts of a few brave men. 
The parties, or many of them, composing the organization, are 
notorious thieves and murderers, more ready to plunder 
friends than foes. With such material as a basis it would be 
surprising to find organization. They do as they please — go 



The Guerrilla Evil 257 

where they please. The effect of this organization upon the 
volunteering has been very injurious. Many, especially the 
worthless, like the privilege of fighting, as they say, on their 
own responsibility, which, interpreted, means, roaming over 
the country, taking what they want and doing nothing. The 
choice arms of the State have been furnished to these people. 
This has induced many to believe they are a favored 
organization. A guerrilla force without being closely watched 
becomes an organized and licensed band of robbers. Properly 
managed in small parties, they are very efficient. I have con- 
templated very seriously disarming the two companies now 
here (Downs's and Spriggs's) simply as an act of protection to 
the good citizens of this county. A guerrilla chief should be 
able to enforce obedience and command the respect of his 
associates. These men (Downs and Spriggs) do neither 
This organization has become a loop hole through which 
hundreds are escaping draft, and, in fact, all service. I 
respectfully invite your attention to the matter, convinced as I 
am that but one side of the picture has been presented to 
you." {War Records, series i, vol. 51, pt. 2, p. 526.) 

The report of the Confederate Secretary of War, 
August 12, 1862, mentions partisan rangers thus: 

" The act authorizing bands of partisan rangers has been 
carried into execution. Apprehending that the novelty of 
the organization and the supposed freedom from control would 
attract great numbers in the partisan corps, the Department 
adopted a rule requiring a recommendation from a General 
commanding a department, before granting authority to raise 
partisans. Notwithstanding the restrictions, there is reason to 
fear that the number of partisan corps greatly exceed the 
requirements of the service, and that they seriously impede 
recruiting for the regiments of the line. {War Records^ series 
4, vol. 2, p. 48.) 

January 3, 1863, Adjutant- and Inspector-General 
Cooper made a report to President Davis, in which he 
mentions partisan rangers as follows : 
17 



258 Union Cause in Kentucky 

" The policy of organizing corps of partisan rangers has not 
been approved by experience. The permanency of their 
engagements, and the consequent inability to disband and 
reassemble at call, precludes their usefulness as mere guerillas ^ 
while the comparative independence of their military relations 
and the peculiar rewards allowed them for captures induce 
much license and many irregularities. They have not unfre- 
quently excited more odium and done more damage with friends 
than with enemies." {War Records, series 4, vol. 2, p. 28Q.) 

April I, 1864, General Robert E. Lee wrote to Adju- 
tant and Inspector-General Cooper as follows : 

** Experience has convinced me that it is almost impossible, 
under the best officers even, to have discipline in these 
bands of partisan rangers, or to prevent them from becoming 
an injury instead of a benefit to the service, and even where 
this is accomplished, the system gives license to many deserters 
and marauders who assume to belong to these authorized 
companies, and commit depredation on friend and foe." 
{War Records y Serial No. 60, p. 1252.) 

November 26, 1863, the Confederate Secretary of War, 
in a report to the President of the Confederacy, thus 
mentions the partisan rangers: 

" The advantages anticipated from the allowance of corps of 
partisan rangers with peculiar privileges to stimulate their zeal 
and activity have been very partially realized, while from that 
independent organization, and the facilities and temptations 
thereby afforded to license and depredations, grave mischiefs 
have resulted. They have, indeed, when under inefficient 
officers, and operating within our own limits, come to be 
regarded as more formidable and destructive to our own 
people than to the enemy. The opportunities, too, afforded 
them of profit by their captures, as well as the lighter bonds of 
discipline under which they are held, serve to dissatisfy the 
trained soldiers of the provisional army, who encounter greater 
peril and privation but are denied similar indulgences. 



The Guerrilla Evil 259 

" There are certainly some honorable exceptions to the gen- 
eral estimate thus held of the partisan corps, and in several 
instances partisan leaders have distinguished themselves and 
their corps by services as eminent as their achievements have 
been daring and brilliant. They constitute only notable excep- 
tions, and experience of the general inefficiency and even 
mischief of the organization would recommend that they either 
be merged in the troops of the line or be disbanded and 
conscripted." {War Records, series 4, vol. 2, p. 1003.) 

On the nth of July, 1864, General Thomas L. 
Rosser wrote to General Lee concerning "irregular bod- 
ies of troops known as partisans, etc." He says: 

" Without discipline, order, or organization, they swarm 
broadcast over the country, a band of thieves, stealing, 
pillaging, plundering, and doing every manner of mischief 
and crime. They are a terror to the citizens and an 
injury to the cause." {War Records, Serial No. 60, p. 
1082.) 

July 16, 1863, authority was granted to certain men 
"to raise a regiment of partisans within the enemy's 
lines" for obstructing communication and transportation 
on the Mississippi River. {War Records, series 4, vol. 
2, p. 639.) 

July 15, 1863, authority was granted to raise two com- 
panies of partisan rangers to be composed of Kentuckians. 
{War Records, series 4, vol. 2, p. 359.) 

January 12, 1863, Adjutant- and Inspector-General 
Cooper issued an order mentioning the irregularities of 
the partisan rangers, and requiring them to be brought 
under better control, adding, however, "Such partisan 
corps as are serving within the enemy's lines are for the 
present excepted from this order." {War Records, series 
4, vol. 2, p. 585.) 

February 17, 1864, the act authorizing partisan rangers 
was repealed, and another enacted making them the same 



26o Union Cause in Kentucky 

as regular cavalry, and that all bands organized under the 
first act should be brought in connection with the regular 
forces. Provided, however, that "The Secretary of War 
shall be authorized, if he deem proper, for a time or 
permanently, to except from the operation of this act 
such companies as are serving within the lines of the 
enemy, and under such conditions as he may prescribe." 
{War Records, series 4, vol. 3, p. 194.) 

It appears from the foregoing quotations that the Con- 
federate authorities saw clearly that partisan ranger service 
was either simply another name for guerrilla service, or 
that it engendered guerrilla service, and that it was 
precisely such service as Kentucky was suffering under. 
They saw the viciousness of it and endeavored to lift it 
off themselves, but "within the enemy's lines " it might 
go on unchecked. 

It therefore was a fact that from 1862 until the end of 
the war Kentucky was overrun and infested with these 
irregular bands, who always claimed to be "Confederate 
soldiers " when captured, and, in fact, they were operating 
in Kentucky after their own peculiar manner by the ex- 
press authority of the Confederate government. 

Without giving the details of Collins's /^;/;W^, but only 
a general statement, it will be shown that he mentions 
the burning of thirteen court-houses by Confederate 
raiders. He gives not less than twenty instances of 
wanton plundering of towns by the same. He mentions 
fifteen instances of killings of Union men by the same. 
He notes nine instances of wanton burning other than 
court-houses by the same. On the other hand, he notes 
only one instance of plundering by Home Guards, no 
killings and no burnings. Only one court-house is men- 
tioned as burned by the Federals, and that was not 
intentional, but "by the carelessness of Federal soldiers." 

The wanton burning of court-houses is so striking it 
is proper to mention them particularly. 



The Guerrilla Evil 261 

"December i, 1863, Confederate cavalry enter Mt. Sterling, 
burn the court-house, and clerk's offices." 

"March 21, 1864, court-house at Owingsville burned by the 
carelessness of Federal soldiers." 

"June I, 1864, guerrillas visit Stanton, Powell Co., burn the 
jail, and turn over the clerk's office. They destroyed the 
court-house previously." 

"December 4, 1864, guerrillas visit Owingsville, Bath Co., 
rob the stores and make a bonfire in the street of many 
records and court papers from the clerk's office." 

"December 23d, 1864, court-house at Campbellsville, Taylor 
Co., burnt by General Lyon's Confederate troops after removing 
the records to a place of safety. Other outrages committed." 

" December 28, 1864, Captain Basham and 20 guerrillas dash 
into Hardinsburg, Breckinridge Co., capture the Home 
Guard arms in the court-house, and set fire to that and other 
buildings." 

"January, 1865, General H. B. Lyon, Confederate forces, 
on their way out of the State, visit Burkesville, Cumberland 
Co., burn the court-house, plunder the stores, and impress 
horses." 

" January 8, 1865, court-house and public records at 
Owensboro burned by guerrillas under Davidson and 
Porter. ' ' 

"January 25, 1865, guerrillas have recently burned the 
court-houses at Albany, Clinton Co., at Marion, Crittenden 
Co., and at Taylorsville, Spencer Co." 

"February 21, 1865, guerrillas burn the court-house at 
Hodgenville, Larue Co., because it had been used as a 
barracks for Federal soldiers." 

General Lyon's cavalry also burned the court-house at 
Hopkinsville, and Morgan's cavalry burned the court- 
house at Lebanon. 

A good statement of who guerrillas were is found in 
the history of Morgan's cavalry, by General Basil W. 
Duke. He tells how troops who are well paid and 



262 Union Cause in Kentucky 

clothed have little inducement to go into such practices, 
and then says : 

"Troops whose rations are few and empty, who flutter with 
rags, and wear ventilated shoes which suck in the cold air, 
who sleep at night under a blanket which keeps the saddle 
from a sore-backed horse in the daytime, who are paid (if 
paid at all) with waste paper, who have become hardened to 
the licentious practices of cruel warfare — such troops will be 
frequently tempted to violate the moral code. 

"Many Confederate cavalry so situated left their com- 
mands altogether and became guerrillas, salving their con- 
sciences with the thought that the desertion was not to the 
enemy. These men, leading a comparatively luxurious life, 
and receiving from a good people a mistaken and foolish 
admiration, attracted to the same career young men who, (but 
for the example and sympathy accorded the guerrillas and 
denied the faithful, brave and suffering soldier) would never 
have quitted their colors and their duty. 

"Kentucky was at one time, just before the close of the 
war, teeming with these guerrillas. It was of no use to 
threaten them with punishment. They had no idea of being 
caught. Besides, Burbridge shot all he could lay his hands 
on, and for their sins, many prisoners (guilty of no offence), 
selected at random or by lot from the pens where he kept 
them for that purpose, were butchered by this insensate 
bloodhound." ' (Duke's History of Morgan's Cavalry, 

P- 53°-) 

Bad as all this was, it was aggravated by another 
method of throwing irresponsible bands into Kentucky 
to depredate on all that appertained to the Union cause. 
The Confederate authorities expressly commissioned 
men to enter Kentucky to recruit for the Confederate 
service. This work must have been secret and without 
uniform, and thus the State was filled with characters such 

' See Appendix, § 21, p. 356. 



The Guerrilla Evil 263 

as will be described in a letter written by Confederate 
General N. B. Forrest. 

In the year 1864 and early in 1865 Kentucky was full 
of bands of Confederates, operating as they saw fit. In 
January, 1865, General John C. Breckinridge sent his 
kinsman Colonel Robert J. Breckinridge into the State 
to require Confederates in the State to report to him, 
under penalty of not being recognized, if captured, as 
prisoners of war. Colonel Breckinridge was captured 
with this order in his possession. {War Records, Serial 
No. 103, pp. 764, 770.) 

The follov/ing letter from Confederate General N. B. 
Forrest to the Confederate Secretary of War is very 
interesting. It serves to explain who were the men who 
were roaming about Kentucky, claiming to be authorized 
Confederate soldiers, and acting as described not only by 
General Forrest but by the records, and in Collins's 
Annuls: 

" Headquarters Forrest's Cavalry Corps, 
"West Point, Miss. March 18, 1865. 

" Hon. John C. Breckinridge, 

' ' Secretary of War, Richmond, Va. 

" General: — I take the liberty of addressing you relative to 
the state of affairs in the district of southern Kentucky, and 
to bring to your notice and knowledge existing evils which can 
alone be corrected by yourself as the chief of the War Depart- 
ment. It is due to myself to state that I disclaim all desire or 
intention to dictate. So far from it, I hesitate even now to 
make known the facts or to suggest the remedies to be applied. 
No other motive than the 'good of the service' prompts me to 
address you. 

"A military district was formed in southern Kentucky, 
including a small portion of west Tennessee, and Brigadier- 
General A. R. Johnson assigned to the command of it. The 
object in creating this district was doubtless for the purpose 
of raising and organizing troops for our army. Its permanent 



264 Union Cause in Kentucky 

occupation by any force raised within its limits was not 
expected or calculated upon. 

" If it was, the sequel shows that both in raising troops or 
holding the territory the experiment is a complete failure. 
General Johnson was often reported to have from 1,200 to 
1,800 men, was finally wounded and captured and his men 
scattered to the four winds. 

"Brigadier-General Lyon then succeeded him, and was 
driven across the Tennessee River into north Alabama with only 
a handful of men. Nothing has been added to our army, for, 
while the men flock to and remain with General Johnson or 
General Lyon, as long as they can stay in Kentucky, as soon 
as the enemy presses, and they turn southward, the men 
scatter, and my opinion is, they can never be brought out 
organized until we send troops there in sufficient numbers to 
bring them out by force. 

"So far from gaining any strength for the army, the Kentucky 
brigade, now in my command, has only about 300 men in 
camps (3d, 7th, and 8th Kentucky Regiments). They have 
deserted and attached themselves to the roving bands of 
guerrillas, jayhawkers, and plunderers who are the natural 
offspring of authorities given to parties to raise troops within 
the enemy's lines. 

" The authorities given to would-be colonels, and by them 
delegated to would-be captains and lieutenants, have created 
squads of men who are dodging from pillar to post, preying 
upon the people, robbing them of their horses and other 
property, to the manifest injury of the country and our cause. 

" The same state of affairs exists in west Tennessee. The 
country is filled with deserters and stragglers, who run away 
and attach themselves to the commands of those who have 
the authorities referred to. They never organize, report to 
nobody, are responsible to no one, and exist by plunder and 
robbery. There may perhaps be a few exceptions, but as a 
general thing, men who besiege the department for such 
authorities are officers without position or command, who, by 
flattering representations, recommendations, and influential 
friends, avoid the ranks by obtaining authorities to raise 



The Guerrilla Evil 265 

troops within the enemy's lines. I venture the assertion that 
where one succeeds and organizes a command, ninety-nine 
fail, and that they take twenty men out of the army to one 
placed in it. 

*' I therefore unhesitatingly recommend that all parties hold- 
ing such authorities, or acting under orders from those who 
do hold them, be ordered to report with what men they have 
to the nearest department commander, within a limited period, 
for consolidation and organization, and those failing so to 
report, to have their authorities revoked, and themselves 
subjected to conscription whenever caught. 

" Do not understand me as reflecting on General Johnson or 
General Lyon; they did all they could, no doubt, to carry out 
the objects of the department in their district. They have 
failed, and the fact to my mind is demonstrated most clearly 
that the conscripts and deserters in west Tennessee and 
Kentucky will never come out until brought out by force. 

' ' If all the authorities to raise troops in the enemy's lines are 
revoked, and the mustering officers ordered out, troops can be 
occasionally sent in under good and reliable officers, to arrest 
and bring out deserters, and break up the bands of lawless men 
who not only rob the citizens themselves, but whose presence 
in the country gives a pretext to Federal authority for 
oppressing the people. 

"I am, General, very respectfully, 

" Your obedient servant, 

"N. B. Forrest, Major-General." 

From the beginning to the end of the war the Federal 
authorities were in control of the entire State of Ken- 
tucky, with two brief exceptions, the first being when the 
Confederates first entered in 1861 and for about four 
months controlled the extreme southern border, and, 
second, in the year 1862 when Generals Bragg and Kirby 
Smith overspread some of the central portion for about 
two months. During all the years of the war, with these 
brief exceptions, the State was fully in the possession of 
the Federals, and a large part of the troops used in its 



266 Union Cause in Kentucky 

protection were Kentuckians. As has been already 
stated, the administration showed that consideration for 
the State which caused it to place Kentucky officers, and 
Kentucky troops, upon this duty. The work of the 
officers and soldiers, in conjunction, oftentimes, with 
troops from other States, was that of defence and pro- 
tection. There was nothing in the State which they 
wished to destroy. They were to maintain the railroads 
and all bridges, guard all government property, and pre- 
vent, in so far as they were able, the destruction of any- 
thing. That unlawful acts by lawless soldiers would 
sometimes occur were incidents inseparable from the pre- 
sence of large numbers of soldiers in any war, and in 
any country, but that the Federal soldiery in Kentucky 
oppressed or outraged the citizens is simply unwarranted 
assertion. The Federal forces were not "quartered" 
upon the people. They did not "subsist upon the 
country." Rations for the men and provender for the 
beasts were issued from the supplies of the commissaries, 
precisely as if the troops were in a country destitute of 
subsistence. When supplies were obtained the govern- 
ment paid for them, or gave written obligation to pay. 

If Kentucky had not had the irritation of conflicts with 
the raiders from the Confederacy, the war would have 
been felt but lightly. 

On the other hand, the records show that the Con- 
federates came into Kentucky to make her feel the heavy 
hand of war. They came for destruction, and for supplies 
of horses and other stock, and whatever else came to 
hand. Government property, wherever found, was taken 
or destroyed. Buildings in towns were burned. Court- 
houses, especially, seemed to be proper to be burned. 
Money was taken from banks, goods from stores, jewels 
from private houses. Whatever was wanted was taken 
wantonly. The proof of all this is found fairly well set 
forth in CoUins's Annals. Without being a fair or 



The Guerrilla Evil 267 

impartial chronicler (for he was an intense Southern 
partisan) yet in order to make a chronicle at all he must 
needs, from the nature of the case, in setting down the 
deplorable incidents of the war, note scores perpetrated 
by Confederates to one which was not. He did not 
gather all, nor anything like all, the guerrilla outrages, 
but it is not likely he overlooked any perpetrated by 
Union men. The principal complaints Collins has against 
the Federal authorities are upon political grounds — 
blaming the officers for interfering with the personal 
liberty of citizens and for holding them responsible for 
the outrages of guerrillas. And it must be borne in mind 
that he makes even so mild a man as Governor Bramlette 
the principal "offender" in this particular. 

In noting the striking events in Kentucky during the 
war, Collins gives more than a hundred instances of out- 
rages perpetrated by the raiders — killings, burnings, loot- 
ings, and such like crimes. Practically none does he 
give as perpetrated by Unionists. 

Although Collins, in making his Annals, sets down 
almost nothing as against the Home Guards, yet the 
historian Z. F. Smith has done them the injustice to class 
them with the guerrillas in a general statement supported 
neither by fact nor by reference to any authority whatever. 
He says with truth that ' ' Confederates came to prowl and 
prey upon communities in defiance of all restraints of 
civilized warfare, marauding bands of outlaws, who per- 
petrated murders, robberies, arson, and outrage" — but 
without warrant of any record or citation of authority 
adds — "as wantonly as did the worst element of the 
other side." 

The injustice is that the Home Guards, acting with the 
regular military, were making war upon the lawless 
bands. While one side came into the State for purposes 
of mischief, the other side was organized and used in the 
State for the purpose of protection. Moreover, it was in 



268 Union Cause in Kentucky 

large measure Kentuckians protecting themselves, and the 
task they had was to protect themselves from the inten- 
tionally destructive raids made into the State by rangers 
and guerrillas which the Confederacy sent out generally, 
but afterwards drew in, so far as their own territory was 
concerned, but left them in full riot when "serving within 
the enemy's lines," which included Kentucky. 



CHAPTER XVII 

HALLUCINATIONS 

THOSE who favored secession in Kentucky were 
confident that the State would follow the lead of 
the other seceding States. While it was plain in the 
early part of 1861 that there were many Union men in 
the State, all the advantage seemed to be with the seces- 
sionists. They had the Governor and public arms of the 
State, and they felt sure of the Legislature. With such 
odds, it seemed to be a well-nigh assured fact that the 
State could be seceded. 

The extremely narrow Union margin in the I^egislature 
by which the first step toward secession was prevented, 
did not convince the intensely earnest secessionists that 
the State was really Union in sentiment ; nor were they 
•convinced by the voting of 1861, although such large 
majorities were polled by the Unionists. It was too hard 
a task for the friends of the Southern movement to give 
up Kentucky as hopeless. Nothing that occurred could 
convince them that the people of Kentucky would adhere 
to the Union, when all the burning appeals were made to 
them, portraying the magnificent future of the Southern 
Confederacy, and depicting the intolerable oppressions 
and despotic purposes of the friends of the Union. Nor 
was the idea given up wholly at any time. The halluci- 
nation that the people of Kentucky were willing and 
anxious to join the Southern movement caused great 
injustice to be done to the friends of the Union. This 
injustice was twofold. The constant heralding of the 

269 



270 Union Cause in Kentucky 

error that the people were for the South led to harsh 
criticism of the Union leaders, and it led to much ques- 
tioning of the genuine loyalty of the State. The people 
of the South were made to believe that the Union leaders 
in Kentucky were perfidious and two-faced, while the 
people in the North came to think that nearly every man 
in Kentucky was either a traitor or at least of doubtful 
loyalty. 

The sentiment thus created has never been wholly 
eradicated. While it may be lost sight of in the minds 
of many who prefer that all such matters should be for- 
gotten, the histories which have been written still preserve 
the error, and it is but just to the memory of great and 
good men that the contrary should be set forth, that the 
history of the past may not always present to readers and 
inquirers a grievously false impression. 

It has been affirmed that there was, in some sort, a 
compact between the friends of the South on one side and 
the Unionists on the other in regard to neutrality; that 
"this compact thus formed was not violated by the South- 
ern men"; that Mr. Lincoln gave assurances that if Ken- 
tucky would remain neutral, "no hostile step should 
tread her soil ' ' ; that ' ' the Southern leaders awoke too late 
to a realization of the fact that they had been circum- 
vented"; that "under the guise of neutrality, the war 
was prepared to subjugate Kentucky" ; that "the history 
of no country, or no part or period of the late civil war, 
presents a darker chapter than that which records the 
first six months of the war, and the means by which Ken- 
tucky was finally occupied by the Federal army and, thus 
bound, claimed to be loyal in the sense of sanctioning 
such a policy"; that the Southern sympathizers in Ken- 
tucky rested secure in the confident expectation that noth- 
ing would be done to interrupt the relations of the State 
toward the North and the South, which "vain delusion" 
was suddenly dispelled by the organization of troops at 



Hallucinations 271 

Camp Dick Robinson, and on that account the Con- 
federacy was compelled in self-defence to advance her 
troops into the State, September 3, 1861. It has been 
said that Kentucky had chosen for herself the position of 
neutrality ; which the South tenaciously respected, and 
that on the other hand the government of the United 
States repudiated it from the beginning, and repeatedly 
violated it, and scoffed at those who trusted to it for 
protection; that President Lincoln acted with duplicity, 
also General McClellan, and the great men of the Union 
party ; that they were all filled with deceit and treachery, 
and that a systematic scheme was concocted to mis- 
lead the innocent, credulous, and unsuspecting Southern 
sympathizers. Therefore, when the Confederate troops 
came into the State, September 3, 1861, proclamations 
were issued apparently in good faith, notifying the 
Kentucky people that, whereas they had been so 
duped and hoodwinked by the Federals, now the 
opportunity was offered for them to arise and assert their 
rights. 

The extravagant charges of the day have since been 
reiterated by writers of historical works. In Z. F. Smith's 
History of Kentucky^ published in 1886, he uses this 
language : 

"The door had been thrown widely open by the bold act 
of General Nelson at Camp Dick Robinson, and no longer 
the thin disguise of pretext could conceal that the authorities 
at Washington and the positive leaders of the Union cause, 
grown bold by the advantages they had won in the Fabian 
strategies of delay, were now concurring to throw off the mask 
of neutrality, and to lead the great mass of her people to a 
committal to the policy of coercion under the plea of loyalty 
and patriotic duty. The great majority of the people, who 
had been profoundly sincere and honest in the adoption of 
neutrality before, beheld now the misleading illusion vanish 
before their illusion of hope." 



2 72 Union Cause in Kentucky 

The representations made at the time are also echoed 
in Jefferson Davis's history of the War. He says: 

"As far as the truth could be ascertained, a decided 
majority of the people of Kentucky, especially in its south- 
western portion, if left to a free choice, would have joined 
the Confederacy in preference to remaining in the Union." 
(Vol. i., p. 398.) 

He also says: 

"I have thus presented the case of Kentucky, not because it 
was the only state where false promises lulled the people into 
delusive security until by gradual approaches usurpation had 
bound them hand and foot, and where despotic power crushed 
all the muniments of civil liberty which the Union was formed 
to secure, but because of the attempt which has been noticed 
to arraign the Confederacy for invasion of the State in dis- 
regard of her sovereignty." 

The fact is, the secessionists of Kentucky, and through 
them the leaders in the Confederacy, were firmly set in 
the conclusion that Kentucky rightfully belonged to the 
South, when the people themselves declared in every way 
they could, and in the most unmistakable manner, that 
they would not join in with secession, but would adhere 
to the Union. 

Shaler in his history truthfully says : 

"The tone of the Southern States in assuming that 
Kentucky belonged to them, but was kept in her relation 
to the Union by fear, was deeply offensive to the State 
pride." 

The repeated assertions that the majority of the people 
of Kentucky were in favor of secession virtually pledged 
the State to the Southern Confederacy, and when it was 
discovered that not a step could be taken in that direction, 
the reasons assigned were treachery, duplicity, and bad 
faith on the part of everybody who opposed secession. 

The unwarranted attitude of the Southern leaders 



Hallucinations 273 

toward Kentucky is illustrated in a letter written to Gen- 
eral A. S. Johnston by George W. Johnson, who was 
made "provisional Governor" of Kentucky. The date is 
October 15, 1861. He says: 

"At present, a large portion of the people of Kentucky have 
neither the protection of State, Federal, nor Confederate law. 
The people by large majorities maintained at the polls the 
position of neutrality and peace, while the Legislature, repudi- 
ating the only doctrine it dared assert before the election, have 
plunged the State into war. Large majorities of the people 
have always been and are now in favor of a permanent con- 
nection with the South, whilst the Legislature, urged by an 
insatiable ambition and party spirit, have forced her into an 
unnatural connection with the North — the most unnecessary, 
foolish, and criminal act, in our opinion, ever perpetrated." 
War Records, Series i, vol. 4, p. 450.) 

George W. Johnson also says that 

" since Lincoln's election there were but two parties in Ken- 
tucky, the States Rights party and the Union party; that the 
States Rights party were at all times in favor of connection 
with the South; that even the Union party was in favor of 
ultimate connection with the South; that this was their party 
creed when members of Congress were chosen in the summer 
of 1861; that when Congress met the Union Congressmen 
threw off disguise ; that this aroused the people to violent and 
extreme denunciations." 

He calls this a simple and "true history" of the Union 
party in Kentucky, but fails to include in it a mention of 
the August election, when the people voted for Union 
men by an enormous majority, thus ratifying the action 
of their Congressmen. 

President Davis transmitted Mr. Johnson's letter to the 
Congress, saying it is manifest the people of Kentucky 
by a large majority wish to unite their destinies with the 
South, and that there is "Merit enough in the application 



274 Union Cause in Kentucky 

to warrant the disregard of its irregularity," and that 
"we may rightfully recognize the provisional government 
of Kentucky." {lb., p. 753.) 

It was upon the hallucination that the people of Ken- 
tucky did not know what they wanted, and that their 
voting signified nothing, or that they were deluded and 
deceived, that the Confederate commanders when they 
came into the State appealed to them as they did. 

In September, 1861, General Albert Sidney Johnston, in 
a proclamation addressed to the people of Kentucky, 
said: 

"If, as it may not be unreasonable to suppose, these people 
desire to unite their fortunes with the Confederate States, to 
whom they are already bound by so many ties of interest, then 
the appearance and aid of Confederate troops will assist them 
to make an opportunity for the free and unbiased expression of 
their own will upon the subject." 

Such an expression could have only sprung from com- 
plete hallucination. "These people" had declared their 
will at the polls when no army was on hand of either side 
to "assist" them, in the month previous. Yet they were 
appealed to as though they had not, and as though the 
presence of the Confederate army was necessary to 
enable them to express their free and unrestrained will. 
Again, when General Bragg came into Kentucky in 1862, 
he issued a proclamation based upon the idea that the 
people only wanted the opportunity which the presence 
of a Confederate army would give them to reverse the 
judgment they had rendered when no soldiers of either 
side were in the State. 

His address is here given in full : 

" Bardstown, Ky., September 29, 1862. 

"To THE People of Kentucky: 

"The armies of the Confederate States now within your 
borders were brought here more as a nucleus around which the 



Hallucinations 275 

true men of Kentucky could rally than as an invading force 
against the northwest. As you value your rights of person and 
property and your exemption from tyranny and oppression you 
will now rally to the standard which protects you, and has 
rescued your wives and mothers from insult and outrage. 
Troops in any number will be received by companies and armed 
and will be organized into regiments as fast as practicable, com- 
pany officers to be elected by their own men, and field officers 
to be appointed by the President, on recommendation of the 
commanding general, after passing a proper examination. 
Companies should repair, as soon as formed, to Bryantsville 
and report to the officer charged with the organization of 
recruits. Arms and ammunition are there ready for issue to 
all. The usual pay and bounty will be given. Twenty com- 
panies of cavalry are wanted. After they are supplied, 
infantry only will be received. Cavalry recruits will be 
received in any of the regiments now in the field. This is the 
last opportunity Kentucky will enjoy for volunteering. The 
conscript act will be enforced as soon as necessary arrange- 
ments can be made. For further information as to details, 
apply to Major-General S. B. Buckner, who is charged with the 
superintendence of this duty. 

"Braxton Bragg, 

" General Commanding." 
{^War Records, Serial No. no, p. 367.) 

It would be impossible to conceive of any hallucination 
more extraordinary than an appeal to the people to rally 
to a standard for rescue from oppression, and at the same 
time declare to them that if they did not voluntarily 
rally they would be conscripted ! There was a strange 
sound in the words: 

"This is the last opportunity Kentuckians will enjoy for 
volunteering. The conscript act will be enforced as soon 
as necessary arrangements can be made." 

They had an effect not strange but natural. At the 
very time General Bragg was expecting the rally to his 
standard the Kentucky Unionists were crowding into 



276 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

regimental organizations to resist his invasion of 
the State, and he retired a little after, shaking off 
the dust of his feet against the people who would 
not receive his gracious offer to volunteer or be 
conscripted. 

The attitude of the Southern leaders toward Kentucky 
was peculiar, and the manner in which writers since the 
war have followed their claims and statements made dur- 
ing the war has produced false impressions and done 
great injustice. 

Confederate General Hodge, writing in ColUns's His- 
tory of Kentucky, makes an effort to state the case 
fairly, but in doing so shows that he was under the spell 
of the invincible hallucination which was upon all. The 
task is too great for any of them to grasp the proposition 
in its full truth, that Kentucky was in point of actual 
fact really a Union State. 

They must all qualify the case in some way. General 
Hodge accepts the proposition that the people of Ken- 
tucky were Unionists, but he finds that they were so 
simply from blind and unreasoning acceptance of an 
inherited idea, not from intelligent judgment. He also 
adds the qualification that they all believed in the abstract 
right of secession. He says: 

"He must be struck with judicial blindness who, in arriving 
at conclusions drawn from a careful retrospect of the action of 
the people of Kentucky during this crisis, will deny that a vast 
majority of the people of the State were devoted to the cause 
of the Union, and deeply impressed with the necessity of its 
preservation, if possible. In truth, the sentiment of devotion 
to the Union was more nearly akin to the religious faith which 
is born in childhood, which never falters during the excite- 
ments of the longest life, and which at last enables the cradle 
to triumph over the grave. The mass of them did not reason 
about it. The Union was apotheosized; it was thought of 
and cherished with filial reverence. The suggestion of its 



Hallucinations 277 

dissolution was esteemed akin to blasphemy. To advocate or 
to speculate about it was to be infamous." 

Then he adds: 

"But it must not be less clearly apparent to the observer 
that a decided majority of the people believed honestly in the 
abstract right of a State to secede and a vast majority were 
firmly opposed to the attempt to coerce the people of the State 
to remain under the control of a federative government which 
had become unacceptable to them. Nearly all classes of 
public men, nearly all classes of private citizens, held firmly, 
as a cardinal principle of political faith, the soundness of the 
doctrine of the celebrated Kentucky resolutions of 1798-9, 
which, in substance, declared that each State was the final judge 
of the remedies it should pursue when aggrieved by the action 
of the Federal government of the allied States. . . . They, 
as a people, undoubtedly believed that the action of the 
Southern States in seceding was unwise and ill-advised, but 
the abstract right they did not deny." 

Hodge could acknowledge that voting for the Union at 
least indicated a superstitious devotion, but cannot make 
even that acknowledgment without qualifying it by a 
wholly gratuitous assumption. 

It was this hallucination which led to the crimination of 
the Union leaders in Kentucky, by the men who went 
south. They could not and would not be convinced that 
Kentucky took her stand against the Southern move- 
ment, and therefore would have it that some persons 
deceived and deluded the people. They freely gave 
this idea expression. 

Another hallucination which led to great injustice was 
that, although actual war was raging, conditions were 
normal and affairs of all sorts ought to go on in the usual 
way. Although thousands were perishing in actual 
battle, and although two great contending powers were 
striving, each for its own existence, many persons in Ken- 



2/8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

tucky rested under the delusion that in the midst of such 
a conflict any abridgment of personal right was an un- 
justifiable interference. Especially was entire freedom 
of speech insisted upon, and any molestation on ac- 
count of incendiary or treasonable speaking was called an 
"outrage." 

This was well illustrated in the case of Vallandingham, 
of Ohio. He claimed the right to make inflammatory 
speeches in Ohio, which tended to injure the National 
cause, and in answer to the defence he made when 
arrested, Lincoln used the celebrated illustration: shall 
the soldier boy who deserts his post be shot, and the wily 
agitator who induced him to do so go free? 

It may be admitted that military management did 
injustice in certain cases, but in the throes of actual war 
this was to be expected. It was a fight, not a peaceful 
arbitrament, and ideas of self-preservation would be up- 
permost, even though peaceful rights suffered. But in 
Kentucky there was a demand that the daily current of 
life should flow on as evenly as if all were peace, and if 
the serenity of the hour were interrupted, violent de- 
nunciations of the military followed. Antipathy grew 
up against the whole administration of Federal affairs, 
and as Kentucky officers were generally in charge in Ken- 
tucky, the censure fell primarily on their heads, and 
through them upon all Kentucky Unionists. One of the 
most common complaints was on account of the arrest of 
alleged innocent persons. This was called "high-handed 
interference" with the rights of citizens. Other military 
interferences were also complained of at the time. 
Doubtless some injustice was done at the time by the 
military, and also by those who denounced the military, 
but a more uncalled-for injustice has been perpetrated 
since the war by various writers who have placed upon the 
historic page the wholesale crimination rife at the time, 
but not sustained by any record evidence. Shaler finds 



Hallucinations 279 

that Kentucky officers like Boyle were tyrants. He tells 
of Boyle being in command of the Provost Marshals, and 
alleges gross and crying evils of the system. Without 
authority, he says that Bragg recruited from the "class of 
persons who had suffered in person or their sympathies 
from the brutal tyranny of the Provost Marshal system, 
many of them men of conservative Union proclivities 
who had been turned into rebels by the outrages of the 
military authorities." 

He also finds that the management of military affairs in 
Kentucky, which, as elsewhere stated, was largely in the 
hands of Kentucky officers, brought into "utter degrada- 
tion the solemnity of an oath, which was a lamentable 
feature of the civil war." He also finds that there were 
"flagrantly unjust methods." One was holding "rebel 
sympathizers" responsible for guerrilla outrages. Yet it 
was Governor Bramlette who was peculiarly responsible 
for this method of stopping this evil. Another was the 
complaint of military interference at elections, though his 
own statement of the case shows this was a popular per- 
version of the day instead of truth. He correctly states 
that 

"the desperation to which the people were brought 
by the system of guerrilla raids can hardly be described. 
In the year 1864 there was not a county in the State 
that was exempt from their outrages." 

Yet he condemns the methods by which the Kentucky 
officers sought to stamp out the evil. 

No word of censure does Shaler have for the conduct of 
Confederate officers. He distinguishes between guerrillas 
and Confederates, although the records show that the 
guerrillas were appointed, authorized, and sent out by 
Confederate authority. Although it is shown in the 
official reports of Confederate officers, and in Collins's 
Annals, that John Morgan's raiders indulged in much 
unjustifiable conduct, no word of condemnation has the 



28o Union Cause in Kentucky 

historian Shaler. On the contrary, he finds that Morgan 
was the chevalier of the war, without fear and without 
reproach. He enlarges upon his "audacity, swiftness, 
and fertility of resources," and commends the "endurance 
and vigor of action" of his raiders. 

The historians Collins and Smith are alike in tone to 
Shaler, and in their unfair renderings of all that transpired 
in Kentucky during the war there is an exhibition of 
sympathy with the Confederate cause, and an antagonism 
to the Union cause which brings to mind the exaggera- 
tions and distortions which were prevalent while the 
struggle was on. 

The feeUng of the Southern sympathizers in Kentucky 
was not only bitterly against the Union cause, it was 
ardently enhsted on behalf of the Southern cause. There 
was rejoicing at every National defeat, and depression 
over every Confederate defeat. The Federal side was 
despised and the Confederate side was worshipped. Upon 
the subject, therefore, of dealing with citizens who were 
animated by such feeling, it is well to consider how and 
in what manner the Confederates dealt with the people 
within their jurisdiction who favored the Union and not 
the Confederacy. As early as August 14, 1861, the 
President of the Confederacy issued a proclamation on the 
subject, known as the Proclamation of Banishment. It 
was made pursuant to an act of the Confederate Con- 
gress, and duly warned every male citizen of the United 
States who was fourteen years of age or upwards, then 
within the Confederate States, and adhering to the govern- 
ment of the United States, to depart from the Con- 
federate States within forty days, otherwise they would 
be treated as alien enemies. It was graciously provided, 
however, that such citizens may remain if they acknowl- 
edge in due form the authority of the Confederacy, and 
declare their intention to become citizens thereof. No 
such conditions were imposed upon the citizens of Ken- 



Hallucinations 281 

tucky by the Federal authorities. Very many of its 
population in complete sympathy with the South resided 
in the State continuously during the war. Compared 
with the number of such citizens, the number of those 
who were for some cause, or at least alleged cause, inter- 
fered with, was exceedingly small. The instinct of self- 
preservation moved the Confederacy to make a sweeping 
order of banishment, but in Kentucky the same instinct 
was restrained within degrees of moderation unknown to 
the Southern government, which was idolized by those in 
sympathy with it. The knowledge of this fact at the 
time ought to have moderated the passions of the hour, 
and especially it ought to cause writers of history to 
refrain from iterating the abuse and denunciations which 
were so abundant while the trouble of war was upon the 
country. Yet Shaler's History, and especially Collins's 
Annals, abound in these criminations, and the echo of 
them has so gone into many general histories. 

It is the same in regard to retaliatory acts. Retalia- 
tion was not confined to one side alone. It was practised 
by both, and if the one is condemned for it, both should 
be. On the first of May, 1863, the Confederate Congress 
enacted a remarkable law on the subject — especially 
remarkable in the light of subsequent events. Section 3 
of the act provided that for the violation of the laws and 
usages of war by those acting under the authority of the 
United States the President is authorized to cause full 
and complete retaliation to be made. Section 4 pro- 
vides that every white person, being a commissioned 
officer, who shall command negro troops shall, if captured, 
be put to death.^ 

The instinct of self-preservation led the Confederate 
authorities to adopt stringent methods to defeat what 
they regarded as gross misconduct on the part of the 

' See Appendix, § 22, p 354. 



282 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

United States forces. So also in Kentucky, the instinct 
of self-preservation caused retaliatory measures to be 
adopted, to stem, if possible, the wild tide of guerrilla 
outrages. That such harsh measures were adopted by 
both sides ought to be shown by the impartial historian, 
and one side ought not to be condemned as brutal while 
the other is made to appear without blame. 

In the year 1863 there were two candidates for Gov- 
ernor, Thomas E. Bramlette and Charles A. Wickliffe. 
Both were Union men, but Wickliffe had become 
dissatisfied with the conduct of the war for the Union, 
while Bramlette, at that time, was in no way disaffected. 
At the election in August Bramlette received 67,586 
votes, and Wickliffe 17,344; the total vote being almost 
85,000. At the time, the complaint was made of military 
interference at the polls, and Bramlette's election was 
attributed to this cause. Collins says 40,000 were refused 
a vote or else kept from the polls by military intimida- 
tion. Shaler also tells of the growing hatred of such 
military interference. Smith, in his history, says: 
"Under the military surveillance of the election the 
Union candidates were all elected with little opposition." 

In all this a peculiar thing appears: Shaler himself 
shows that if we add to the 85,000 votes cast at this 
election the number of men who had gone out as 
soldiers, it will make the full vote of the State. It is 
easy to see that this is true. The total vote cast in i860, 
at the Presidential election, was 145,862. Now, if we 
allow 20,000 Confederate soldiers gone from the State, 
and only 40,000 Federal soldiers, there is a total of 
60,000; which, added to the 85,000, makes 145,000 votes. 
How, then, can it be, as Collins says, that 40,000 were 
kept from voting? 

In the same way, when other wholesale charges are 
investigated, they turn out to be groundless. 

In the year following, Governor Bramlette himself, 



Hallucinations 283 

and with him many of the Union men of the State, 
became antagonistic to the administration of President 
Lincoln. Various causes contributed to the change, and 
many insisted that they had not changed, but that the 
administration had changed. Emancipation influenced 
some; others were irritated by the presence of Federal 
soldiers. Whatever ill-fortune came was laid at the door 
of the administration, and it became popular to speak 
harshly of President Lincoln.' 

But there was always an old guard of the tried and 
faithful Unionists who stood by the colors. At the 
Presidential election in 1864 nearly 38,000 voted for Lin- 
coln, while 64,000 voted for McClellan. The Union men 
who voted for McClellan were still for the Union, and 
for the prosecution of the war, only they believed 
McClellan would put down the rebellion more success- 
fully than Lincoln. 

This singular hallucination was not peculiar to Ken- 
tucky. It pervaded the States North to such an extent 
the popular vote for Lincoln was but little larger than 
that for McClellan — being 2,200,000 for Lincoln and 
1,800,000 for McClellan. Lincoln's majority in Indiana 
was only 10,000, and in Ohio McClellan received 205,000 
votes. 

Thus in the North as well as in Kentucky many fell 
into the delusion that McClellan could in some way sup- 
press the rebellion and end the war better than Lincoln, 
but all this class still believed in the Union and were 
opposed to its dismemberment. 

One of the hallucinations of the war time was the well- 
known claim on the part of the Southern people of their 
own superiority over the Northern people in many 
particulars, and especially in courage and military 
prowess. The records and literature of the period 

' See Appendix, § 23, p. 354. 



284 Union Cause in Kentucky 

abound in expressions of this claim. All this might well 
be left unnoticed by the historian, or at most be men- 
tioned as one of the harmless features of the times. But 
for the historian gravely to assert the same as a fact is a 
reflection either upon his judgment or his fairness. 

Especially is this true when it is made to appear that 
in the division of the Kentucky people those who sup- 
ported the Southern side were in some way superior to 
those who adhered to the Union. 

Of those who went south, nineteen became general 
ofificers, and twenty-eight Unionists became general 
officers. If the personal claims of their military leaders 
are investigated one by one, it will be found that they 
are much alike. All of the Federal generals were native- 
born Kentuckians, but not all the Confederates were. 
Many of both sides had distinguished ancestry. The 
military services they rendered were alike creditable. 

One of the unfortunate features of the war in Kentucky 
was the disunion of families. On both sides were found 
men of the same name — brothers and near relatives. If 
the casuist should desire to determine which set of men 
were of the higher order — those who went South or those 
who stood by the Union, perhaps the only clue he could 
have would be the relative merit of the respective causes 
espoused, thus indicating character by the choice made. 
The result would be that those persons who regarded the 
Southern Confederacy as higher and holier than the State 
or National government would decide that way; those 
who have real regard for States' rights, and a true 
estimate of the value of the National Union, might decide 
to the contrary. 

But the hallucination of the hour, that whatever was 
Southern had a flavor of superiority, and that the Union 
cause was on a lower plane, has been duly brought for- 
ward as a fact, notably by the historian Shaler. 

He makes it appear that "40,0x30 of the natural leaders 



Hallucinations 285 

and fighting population of the State" left at once for the 
South in September, 1861 (p. 269). Then he estimates 
the number to be 35,000 (p. 282). He also finds that the 
State Guard amounted to about 15,000 men (p. 246). 
Then he says the State Guard consisted of 10,000 men 
(p. 257). Then that the State Guard as a whole went 
over to the Confederacy (p. 259). With the idea, then, 
that thirty-five or forty thousand, including the whole 
State Guard, went out at once in the early fall of 1861, it 
is natural that he should write : 

" It would require many pages to give even a list of the 
prominent citizens of the State who passed its borders on 
the way to the Southern army. In the month following the 
abandonment of neutrality, the roads were filled with the 
hurrying tlirong of horsemen and of wagons conveying muni- 
tions on their way to the Confederate camp that had been 
pitched beyond the southern and eastern borders of the State 
for their reception. 

" The Federal government pressed what troops were avail- 
able for service in the State, but for a month or more the 
central part of the Commonwealth was held by the recruits 
that had been gathering at Camp Dick Robinson and by the 
companies of Home Guards. The process of enlistment in 
the Federal regiments went rapidly forward — but the material 
fit for immediate service had left the State to return as 
invaders." 

In other words, as he expressed it in another place, the 
loss of 40,00c of the natural fighting population "had left 
the State with little material that could be made into 
good soldiers." (P. 269.) 

In another place he speaks of the Commonwealth 
having lost the first flower of her military material. 
(P. 282.) 

All of this extravagant writing turns pale and sickly 
when read in the light of the official report of the Con- 
federate Adjutant- and Inspector-General Cooper made in 



286 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

February, 1862, showing that the actual number of men 
up to that date furnished to the Confederacy by the 
State of Kentucky was 7950. 

But the extravagant writing is based on the hallucina- 
tion of the hour that nothing was so grand and glorious as 
the Southern cause, and we are prepared for the final 
conclusion of this historian as follows : 

"The Kentucky troops in the Confederate army, being fewer 
in number and from the richer and more educated part of the 
State, were, as a whole, a finer body of men than the Federal 
troops from the Commonwealth. The rebel exiles were the 
first running from the press, and naturally had the peculiar 
quality of their vintage more clearly marked than the later 
product." (P. 375.) 

It is this character of writing, putting sentiment instead 
of the facts of the case, that calls for an account that will 
at least suggest the sources of correct information. If Z. 
F. Smith is correct in his history, it was about 10,000 
who left Kentucky for the Confederacy in the fall of 1861. 
If the Inspector-General of the Confederacy, writing an 
official document for practical use, knew the situation, 
there were exactly 7950 Kentuckians in the Confederate 
service in February, 1862. 

It is a fact also that all of the State Guard did not go 
south. Many members of it remained. In the city of 
Lexington there were three companies; one went south 
with Captain John Morgan ; two remained. One known 
as the "Chasseurs," under Captain Sanders Bruce, be- 
came the nucleus of a regiment, the Twentieth Kentucky 
Infantry, and this company furnished forty commissioned 
officers to the volunteer service. The other, known as 
the "Old Infantry," under Captain S. W. Price, became 
the nucleus of the Twenty-first Kentucky Infantry, and 
was led by Colonel W. S. Price until he was made a 
brigadier- general. 



Hallucinations 287 

Captain D. W. Lindsay, commanding a company in 
Roger Hanson's regiment of the State Guard, struck his 
company tents and marched his company home from an 
encampment held in May, 1861, in Woodford County 
because recruiting for the Confederate army was allowed 
in the encampment, and, with the assistance of G. W. 
Monroe, Orlando Brown, and other members of the com- 
pany, recruited, organized, and took the field with the 
Twenty-second Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. And 
Captain R. M. Kelly, who was also an officer in the same 
State Guard regiment, left the same and became Colonel 
of the famous Fourth Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

Other like instances might be mentioned. 

Now, if the facts are to be the basis of judgment, 
instead of the invincible hallucination which so enchained 
the mind of the historian, and if we consider the report 
of the Confederate Adjutant- and Inspector-General, that 
in February, 1862, there were 7950 Confederates from 
Kentucky, and then take the report of the Adjutant- 
General of Kentucky that there were before that date 
38 Kentucky Union organizations, exclusive of Home 
Guards, and that these were enlisted to the number of 
near 30,000 in the months of July, August, and Septem- 
ber, 1861, it would seem that it is nearer the truth to 
say the "first running of the press" was to the Union 
regiments. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

PATRIOTISM OF THE KENTUCKY UNIONISTS 

THE great value of the service of the Kentucky 
Unionists to the general cause of the Union was 
in the first place their holding Kentucky in the Union. 
Whether it be agreed that other States — notably Tennes- 
see and Virginia — were led into secession by "hasty and 
inconsiderate action," or by the free will of their people, 
there was great danger that the same methods which 
accomplished the secession of those States might have 
been successful in Kentucky. With the advantage of the 
machinery of the State government, the energetic use of 
argument and persuasion, based upon interests and feel- 
ings identified with the seceded States, the odds were 
fearfully against the Unionists. If the Union leaders 
had been less active and earnest, or if the people had 
been less firm in their devotion to the Union, the scales 
might have turned otherwise than as they did. It 
required wisdom and prudence and self-control on the 
part of the leaders to prevent a headlong action, and it 
also required intelligent perception of the real situation 
on the part of the voters to prevent them from being led 
into what was called at the time "the vortex of seces- 
sion." Whether or not Kentucky was a turning weight 
in the scale, the fact that it remained in the Union made 
the restoration less difficult than it would have been if it 
had followed the other Southern States. 

The Unionists of Kentucky served their State and 
country under much unjust censure. At the first they 
were blamed for what they did in holding the State in the 

288 



Patriotism of the Kentucky Unionists 289 

Union. At the last they were blamed for all the miseries 
which necessarily attended a condition of war. They 
were subjected to much abuse at the time, but it is not 
just that the evil-speaking that was current should stand 
as the history of the period, and in writing general accounts 
it is error for the historian to state the expressions of one 
side of a sharp controversy as if they showed the whole 
case. 

The administration of President Lincoln did not deserve 
all the malediction it received in Kentucky. It was fair 
in dealing with the Kentucky people, but they became 
restless under long-continued military control, and some 
strongly expressed their dissatisfaction, forgetful that 
war was raging. 

The administration had to contend with a gigantic 
opposition, and its steps on the battle-ground of Ken- 
tucky could not always please. Antagonisms arose, and 
hard speeches were indulged in. But the condemnation 
of the war policy of Mr. Lincoln was not justifiable any 
more than every specific act of officers and agents was 
justifiable. The war had to be carried on even if mis- 
takes did occur and antagonisms did arise, and it was well 
for the country that in Kentucky there were great men 
who could overlook minor matters, and stand firmly by 
the administration through all its troubles. 

The historians freely condemn "unwarranted transgres- 
sions" of the laws both by the State and National 
authorities (Shaler, 345; Collins, i, 130). It is said that 
"the iniquitous system of interference with the civil law 
had now (1864) pretty thoroughly separated the better 
class of Union men from all sympathies with the Fede- 
ral government" (Shaler, 348). Yet the example was 
followed in the Confederacy by providing for the enlist- 
ment of negroes under the advice of General Lee and 
President Davis. See Davis {^History, pages 515 to 
519). The draft is also condemned, while there 
19 



290 Union Cause in Kentucky 

is no word against Confederate conscription even in 
Kentucky.' 

Animadversions are continued after the close of the 
war, making history say that the troops should have 
been withdrawn from Kentucky sooner, but "the appe- 
tite for military methods had gained a very strong hold 
on the United States," and that "it suited the purpose 
of a political body that had fattened on the system of 
passes and permits to maintain in time of peace a system 
that had its only justification in the hard conditions of 
war, if it can find justification at all." (Shaler, 362.) 

This historian, true to such exacting philosophy, con- 
demns, as a rule, whatever was done in time of war as 
well as peace, and, writing for history the side of the case 
as expressed by the disaffected at the time, only finds 
that a good word can be spoken for President Lincoln 
after the reins had passed into the hands of his successor. 
Forgetful that Lincoln had been, all through the weary 
years of the war, subjected to bitter reproaches by those 
whom this writer most admires, he says after his death: 

"If Lincoln had lived we may well believe that his 
admirable good sense, which enabled him to help his 
native State whenever he could see her in trouble, would 
have removed these barriers to the tide of peace and 
goodwill." (P. 362.) 

Nor does he hesitate to say, immediately following, 
that which severely reflects upon Lincoln's administration 
in the last two years of the war. Speaking of the mili- 
tary authorities in Kentucky, his words are: 

"In two years they did what neither the Confederate 
solicitations nor arms could do: they had driven the 
people, not out of their affection for the cause of the 
National Constitution, but out of all sympathy with the 
ways of its representatives then in power." (P. 364.) 

' See Appendix, § 24, p. 354. 



Patriotism of the Kentucky Unionists 291 

This attitude of some of the people in Kentucky 
toward the administration then receives the following 
approbation : 

"A more complete or more wholesome discontent never 
affected the Kentucky people. A contest into which 
they had entered with really noble emotions had degener- 
ated into a petty political game. They felt that their 
vast sacrifices had brought them sore evils for reward. " 
(P. 364.) 

If history can ever be made to reflect a true view of 
the situation in Kentucky, it will show that the discontent 
never reached the point of giving up the Union, and it 
will further show the wholesome patriotism was in that 
body of unflinching supporters of the administration who 
respected and honored Abraham Lincoln while he was 
alive as well as after his death, and who were unaffected 
by the popular clamors of the day against him and his 
administration. 

In the second place, the Union soldiers of Kentucky 
fought the battle for the Union in a way peculiarly 
necessary, and better than it could have been done by 
any other troops. While the bulk of these soldiers were 
incorporated with the great armies at the front, and per- 
formed their duty there in the same manner as the regi- 
ments from the States North, yet a large number served in 
the State. In organized regiments and in organized militia 
they were engaged from the very beginning in holding 
back Confederate advances so that they rarely reached 
the northern border, and were limited to the middle 
and southerly parts of the State. In the war time there 
was railroad connection from Cincinnati to Lexington, and 
from Lexington to Louisville, and from Louisville to 
Nashville and beyond. The existence of the large armies 
at the front was dependent upon these roads, especially 
the one from Louisville to Nashville. Their protection 
was essential. The Louisville and Nashville road was 



292 Union Cause in Kentucky 

taxed to its utmost with heavy trains carrying supplies 
southward. Long trains of freight cars loaded with pro- 
visions and munitions of war carried soldiers on the 
roofs of the cars. Returning trains were laden with the 
sick and wounded. The requirements became so great 
that in the absence of a bridge at Louisville tracks were 
laid through the streets of the city to the water's edge, 
and were also brought to the water on the opposite side. 
Loaded cars were ferried over and drawn up the bank and 
hurried down the road. It is remembered by those who 
were with the armies at the front that cars appeared 
labelled with the names of railroads all over the North 
and West. General Sherman says in his Memoirs that 
he was puzzled to know how the respective roads would 
ever recover their cars, and the soldiers remember that 
the appearance of these cars, so labelled, caused im- 
mense cheering, for they knew that in some way supplies 
were being brought from far back in the rear. 

It was the importanceof the railroads through Kentucky 
which caused General Sherman to urge upon General 
D. W. Lindsay, who was then at the front in command 
of a brigade, to return at once to Kentucky and accept 
the position of Adjutant-General of the State, which had 
been tendered to him in order that he might by his great 
energy and knowledge of the situation effectively aid in 
the work of organizing troops in the State to protect the 
essential lines of communication. 

To defend and protect these lines no troops were so 
well adapted as those who were familiar with the State. 
It has already been shown that early in the struggle it 
was Colonel John M. Harlan with Kentucky troops who 
came upon General Morgan at Rolling Fork and forced 
him to abandon the line of the Louisville and Nashville 
Railroad, and also that Morgan's exit from the State at 
that time was hastened by other Kentuckians led by 
Colonel William A. Hoskins. 



Patriotism of the Kentucky Unionists 293 

Also that, when Morgan came at other times, his work 
of destruction was stopped by Kentucky troops. His 
expressed purpose in 1864 to cut the road from Cincin- 
nati to Lexington, and then move on to the Louisville 
and Nashville road, was frustrated before he had time to 
injure either. Others besides Morgan, notably Generals 
Lyon and Pegram, and many lesser raiders, were 
successfully prevented from burning bridges and tearing 
up tracks. It will be remembered that in 1862 Home 
Guards stopped a column of Morgan's troops at Augusta, 
and by a bloody fight prevented the execution of a plan 
to cross the Ohio and move down upon Cincinnati; also, 
that when Morgan did cross the Ohio in 1863 the Ken- 
tucky pursuers were so hard upon his track that at one 
time he travelled ninety miles in thirty-five hours, and 
they finally captured him. 

The city of Louisville was a place of immense storage 
of supplies necessary for the army, the destruction of 
which would have been an enormous loss. Time and 
again Louisville was threatened, but never taken. The 
Kentucky Unionists were conspicuous in defending all 
these interests. In defending their State they were de- 
fending the National cause. 

If it had been true that Kentucky had joined the 
Confederacy, and that three times as many of her citizens 
had gone into the Confederate army as went into the 
Union army, it might have been true that great battles 
would have been fought upon the soil of Ohio, Indiana, 
and Illinois, and it is from such reflections that the value 
of the services of the Unionists of Kentucky can best be 
appreciated. In the letter of General Humphrey Mar- 
shall to Governor Magoffin, mentioned in another chap- 
ter, he uses this language: 

"In what does the Kentucky soldier differ from the aboli- 
tionist from Massachusetts who is serving in the army of the 
United States? Do they not sleep at the same camp-fire, eat 



294 Union Cause in Kentucky 

from the same messpan, and draw pay from the same treasure ? 
Are they not commanded by the same officers, and used to 
carry forward the same nefarious policy?" 

In his own phraseology he expresses the exact truth. 
The defenders of the Union were the same whether from 
Massachusetts or Kentucky. Shoulder to shoulder they 
stood for the same great cause, not for abolition, not for 
subjugation, not for conquest, but to maintain the honor 
of the flag, and to save from destruction the American 
Union. 

Nothing can be more plain than that the Kentucky 
Unionists adhered to the Union from a clear perception 
of its inestimable value, and an equally clear perception 
of the fact that its dismemberment would be absolutely 
ruinous. The expression of this sentiment is found in 
the speeches of the leaders, in the newspapers, and in the 
resolutions of the local conventions. 

It is to the credit of these people that they resisted the 
frantic appeals to take sides with the seceded Slave States 
to which they were bound by many ties. It was not in 
anger but in sorrow that they joined hands with the other 
loyal States to uphold the cause of the Union. There is 
a genuine pathos in the speech of Hon. Archibald Dixon 
at Louisville in April, 1861 : 

"My sympathies are with the South, but I am not 
prepared to aid her in fighting against our government. 
If we remain in the Union we are safe." 

And again : 

"In a just cause I will defend our State at every point 
and against every combination, but when she battles 
against the law and the Constitution, I have not the 
heart, I have not the courage, to do it. I cannot do it ; 
I will not do it. Never strike at that flag of our country 
nor follow Davis to tear down the Stars and Stripes." 

Colonel James F. Buckner said in a speech in Christian 
County : 



Patriotism of the Kentucky Unionists 295 

"If the Union is lost, all is lost. Of what use are my 
slaves if we have no government? Life itself will be 
worthless if this glorious Union is destroyed." 

In 1864 Governor Bramlette issued the following call: 

"Kentuckians to the rescue. I want 10,000 six-months 
men at once. Do not hesitate to come. I will lead you. 
Let us help finish this war and save our government." 

The stand of the Kentucky Unionists was well ex- 
pressed in the Holt letter already referred to : 

"It is in vain for the revolutionists to exclaim that this is 
'subjugation.' It is so precisely in the sense in which you and 
I and all law-abiding citizens are subjugated. . . . We 
impose no burden which we ourselves do not bear; we claim 
no privilege or blessing which our brethren of the South shall 
not equally share. Their country is our country, and ours is 
theirs, and that unity both of country and government, which 
the providence of God and the compacts of men have created, 
we could not ourselves without immolation destroy, nor can 
we permit it to be destroyed by others." 

On the subject of the importance of preserving the 
Union Mr. Holt said in his letter: 

"No contest so momentous as this has arisen in human 
history, for amid all the conflicts of men and nations the 
life of no such government as ours has been at stake." 

The preservation of the American Union was the great- 
est achievement ever made by any portion of the human 
race. No other event can compare with it in the 
magnitude of its importance. Great as was the founding 
of the Republic, it would have become a mockery if the 
movement of 1861 had subverted and destroyed it. All 
the predictions of the impossibility of a free republic 
would have been fulfilled, and instead of the establish- 
ment of the principles of liberty and equality, monarchical 
institutions would have been set up in America. The 
successful assertion of the right of secession would have 
been fatal to the existence of a republican nationality 



296 Union Cause in Kentucky 

on this side of the Atlantic capable of resisting the 
encroachments of European monarchy. Instead of the 
United States of to-day, which without a question asserts 
the Monroe Doctrine, the condition of the South Ameri- 
can republics would prevail in North America, with no 
power anywhere to resist alliances with foreign nations. 

This truth was expressed in an address delivered by 
Edward Everett July 4, 1861, in which he said : "If the 
Southern Confederacy is recognized, it becomes a foreign 
power." Then he asked if the United States would 
surrender its territory to England, France, or Spain. 
Why, then, should it surrender to the Southern Confede- 
racy? "Let it be remembered," says he, "that in grant- 
ing to the seceding States jointly and severally the right 
to leave the Union, we concede to them the right of 
resuming, if they please, their former allegiance to Eng- 
land, France, or Spain. It rests with them, or any one 
of them, if the right of secession is admitted, again to 
plant a European government side by side with that of 
the United States on the soil of America." 

If, therefore, it was praiseworthy in our forefathers to 
cast off the British yoke and erect upon this continent a 
government by the people, which was aptly called "a 
new order of the ages," what could they themselves con^ 
template with more satisfaction, if permitted to view the 
affairs of this world, than the preservation by their des- 
cendants of their heritage when the mighty ordeal came. 

The earnest utterances of Everett and Holt, and 
hundreds of like sort, were circulated at the time. In 
speeches and newspapers and in conversation the same 
sentiments were reiterated, and the great watchword of 
the period was the preservation of the Union. 

When the attempt is made to disparage or mistake the 
services of the Union leaders of Kentucky, the appeal is 
to the records of the period. These records tell the 
story of their faithfulness and devotion to duty under 



Patriotism of the Kentucky Unionists 297 

the most trying circumstances, which constantly wins 
admiration, and causes them to stand out in proportions 
truly grand and heroic. And when the story of the 
services of the Union troops furnished by Kentucky is 
correctly understood, they, too, will be understood as 
having splendidly performed their patriotic duty. 

While serving their country they obeyed the behests of 
their own State. By the act of enlistment they placed 
themselves under orders. If sent to the front to do 
battle in connection with the great armies, there they 
were found. If required to guard long lines of com- 
munications, they did that duty. If ordered to police 
their own State, they engaged in that service. The 
entire body of these defenders of the Union cause, 
including the much-needed and much-used Home Guard 
organizations, acted throughout the war under the orders 
of the constituted authorities. They were never found 
roving about in partisan or independent bands. The 
record of all their service, as shown by ofificial reports, is 
singularly free from any conduct inviting criticism. When 
the war ended, the survivors re-entered the walks of 
peace, satisfied with the grand result, and willing to cast 
into oblivion all the animosities engendered by four years 
of strife. They had no hatred of their brothers in the 
Confederate service when they took up arms, nor when 
they laid them down. The defence of the Union was the 
inspiration of the Kentucky Unionists. Living in a 
border State, they saw with a peculiar distinctness the 
evil of a dismembered Union, and threw themselves into 
the ranks of its defenders, assured that only in national 
unity could permanent peace and order be found. Not- 
withstanding their heroic services, they have received but 
scanty mention in the histories, and much of that men- 
tion does them injustice. It is hoped that this work will 
serve a useful purpose in leading to correct views concern- 
ing the Unionists of Kentucky. 



CHAPTER XIX 

THE SOLDIERS 

AS an original proposition no reason exists for making 
any comparisons of the soldierly qualities of the 
Kentuckians on the respective sides in the war, but as 
great injustice has been done to the Union soldiers in 
this respect by the historian Shaler, it becomes proper to 
bring forward some general facts, in connection with a 
statement of the services of these Union soldiers. 

He says: "The Confederacy received the youth and 
strength from the richest part of the Kentucky soil. The 
so-called Blue Grass region," says he, "sent the greater 
part of its men of the richer families into the Confederate 
army, while the Union troops, though from all parts of 
the State, came in greater abundance from those who 
dwelt on thinner soils." (P. 374.) 

He also says: "Of the one hundred and thirty 
thousand or more Kentucky men who bore arms during 
the Civil War a very good report can be given. Both as 
infantry and cavalry they did exceedingly effective 
service in both armies. The Kentucky troops in the 
Confederate army, being fewer in number and from the 
richer and more educated part of the State, were as a 
whole a finer body of men than the Federal troops from 
the Commonwealth." (73.) 

Speaking of the soldiers under Confederate General 
Morgan, he says : 

" We find in this remarkable body of men a great capacity 
at once for dash and for endurance. The force under Morgan, 
which owed its peculiar excellence more to the quality of the 

298 



The Soldiers 299 

men and subordinate commanders than to the distinguished 
leader, developed a new feature in the art of war ; vigilance, 
daring, fertility of resource, a race-horse power of hurling all 
into a period of ceaseless activity, were necessary for these 
wonderful raids." (P. 375.) 

He also says: "The history of the Federal brigades of 
mounted troops makes almost as good a showing for 
these qualities. They lacked subordinate officers of Mor- 
gan's type. There were many excellent men among her 
officers, but no one brigade had such lieutenants as Basil 
Duke, Hines, Smith, Grigsby, and a host of other 
extraordinary men that led his forces." {lb.) 

He then adds, in a note to confirm the historic state- 
ment, that Basil Duke is now a distinguished lawyer, 
Hines Chief-Justice of Kentucky, Howard Smith Audi- 
tor and railroad commissioner, Grigsby a prominent 
legislator and valuable citizen. 

He then considers the infantry troops, and as an 
example, to show that the Confederates were finer troops 
than the Federals, he details the service of the First 
Kentucky brigade (Confederate). The strength of this 
brigade was, as he states, 1140, thus making this small 
body stand as the type of the best infantry soldiers from 
Kentucky. He says that as the Federal brigades were 
made up of regiments from different States it is "im- 
possible to cite any instances of endurance among these 
troops that can be compared with that of the First Con- 
federate Kentucky brigade." He adds, somewhat incon- 
sistently, that the history of individual regiments showed 
the same qualities, but the point made by the historian 
is that the Confederate troops from Kentucky were finer 
troops than the Federal troops from Kentucky. In the 
cavalry service Morgan's men are cited as the illustration. 
In the infantry service, the First Confederate Ken- 
tucky brigade is cited as the illustration. 



300 Union Cause in Kentucky 

He then says: "It could be made clear, if space 
allowed the showing, that the best fighting material came 
from the richest and most elevated population of the 
Commonwealth" (p. 377), from which portion he says 
the Confederate soldiers came. 

This is not history, but rather the expression of views 
and sentiment. 

Why it should be said the Blue Grass section con- 
tributed its best material to the Confederate army, and 
that the Union troops went from poorer parts of the 
State, or why the best fighting material on either side 
went from the Blue Grass section, there is nothing to 
show. More men went into the Union service than into 
the Confederate service from the Blue Grass, and, in so 
far as any recorded accounts go, the men from other 
sections on either side were as good soldiers as those 
from the Blue Grass. 

It has been shown that this historian errs greatly in 
his numbers. In one instance he states that 40,cxx) Con- 
federates went out at once, in the fall of 1861, and then 
that 40,000 was the total number from first to last, both 
of which statements are incorrect, as shown by the 
quotations from the records, and from Confederate 
historians. So now, when he uses the figures 30,000 or 
more, he is manifestly excessive, and so also when he 
comes to describe these soldiers and tell from what parts 
of the State the finest came, he falls into like errors. 

Shaler having given the First Confederate Kentucky 
brigade as the example, it is only necessary to quote the 
following from Colonel Ed. Porter Thompson's history 
of that brigade. Colonel Thompson served with it, and 
has written its history. He says of the soldiers of that 
command : 

" They represented Kentucky as a whole and not any par- 
ticular section of it, not any particular class of its citizens. 
They came together from eighty-three counties, from homes 



The Soldiers 301 

dotting the State line from the Big Sandy to the Mississippi, 
from the Ohio to the Tennessee line, from the mountains, the 
Blue Grass regions, and the western plains ; from city and 
hamlet and country places, from factories and shops, mines 
and farms, from schools, commercial houses and the offices of 
professional men." (P, 23.) 

Concerning the capacity for dash and endurance and for 
courage and invincible determination which the historian 
finds in Morgan's men, it would be certainly as natural 
for an impartial writer to cite as an illustration the ser- 
vices of the Kentucky regiments who contended with 
Morgan, and pursued and captured him, and twice broke 
up his command, as to cite Morgan's command, giving 
the names of his subordinates. 

The ability of Morgan's subordinates is not questioned, 
but there is no call for any historian to enter upon 
invidious distinctions between them and the Federal 
officers. In no particular did the men named, or any 
other Confederate officers from Kentucky, excel as 
soldiers or citizens such Union military leaders as 
Thomas L. Crittenden, William T. Ward, Thomas J. 
Wood, L. H. Rousseau, Jerre T. Boyle, Speed S. Fry, 
John M. Harlan, James S. Jackson, E. H. Hobson, 
John T. Croxton, Green Clay Smith, D. W. Lindsay, E. 
H. Murray, T. T. Garrard, B. H. Bristow, R. T. Jacob, 
John Mason Brown, J. M. Shackelford, John H. Ward, 
and scores of others who led the Union troops of 
Kentucky. 

The turn of political affairs in Kentucky did not bring 
preferment to the Union leaders in the State, as a rule, 
but Colonel Thomas B. Cochran became chancellor in 
Louisville, and Colonels Morrow, B. F. Buckner, and 
others were circuit judges, and J. R. Hindman became 
Lieutenant-Governor; John M. Harlan's great ability is 
now manifested on the Supreme Bench; Green Clay 
Smith was elected to Congress in 1863 and 1865, and was 



302 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

made a Territorial Governor; B. H. Bristow was a most 
distinguished Cabinet officer, E. H. Murray became 
Governor of Utah, J. M. Shackelford a Federal judge, 
William H. Hays and Walter Evans Federal judges, 
and as honored citizens the list would be too long for 
mention in this place. 

The historian Shaler speaks of the "Federal brigades 
of mounted troops" as though the Kentucky cavalry 
regiments were brigaded together. There was but one 
such organization, but that one not only almost, but 
altogether, made as splendid a showing as any cavalry on 
either side during the war. From 1863 until the end of 
the war, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th regiments of Ken- 
tucky cavalry constituted one brigade, under command of 
Colonel Lewis D. Watkins. The service of this brigade 
was with the great armies, and its fighting was at such 
places as Chickamauga, the Atlanta campaign, and under 
General Thomas in the campaign which wound up with 
the battle of Nashville. After that it took part in 
General Wilson's celebrated expedition through Alabama 
and Georgia. The names of the places visited by this 
brigade of cavalry all have a warlike sound: Murfrees- 
boro, Triune, Fayettesville, Wartrace, Tupelo, Tul- 
lahoma, Huntsville, Caperton's Ferry, Valley Head, 
Crawfish Springs, Rossville, Lookout Mountain, Kings- 
ton, Adairsville, Etowah, Kennesaw, Sandtown, Atlanta, 
Nashville, Montgomery, Macon, 

The service mentioned of these regiments was but a 
section of the whole. They had begun their career in 
Kentucky, attended the armies to Shiloh, followed them 
on the grand round through Tennessee and back to Ken- 
tucky, on the march to Louisville, out to Perry ville, and 
thence back to Tennessee. In all this, the work of the 
cavalry was peculiarly arduous. It operated under the 
orders of the commander-in-chief. It had no independ- 
ent action, no place "to reason why," but only to per- 



The Soldiers 303 

form the duty assigned, protecting the flanks of the 
army, scouting, reconnoitring, guarding, fighting back 
advances, pursuing, skirmishing, and in all respects 
engaging in the work required of cavalry in connection 
with large forces of infantry. 

The 2d, 3d, and 5th regiments of Kentucky cavalry, 
with the 9th Pennsylvania and 8th Indiana, constituted a 
brigade for a time commanded by Eli H. Murray, Colo- 
nel of the 3d Kentucky. A notable part of the service 
of these regiments was in the march from Atlanta to the 
sea and thence through the Carolinas. The obstacles to 
Sherman's march were in large degree met by the 
cavalry, and the report of the young commander of this 
brigade discloses fighting all the way — at Jonesboro, 
Lovejoy's, Jackson, Ocmulgee, Macon, Milledgeville, 
Ogeechee, Waynesboro, Augusta, Sister's Ferry, Averys- 
boro, Bentonville, and other places. 

This also was but a section of the service of these 
regiments. They, too, had been with the large armies 
from the beginning. The Second Cavalry from first to last 
was in fifty-six engagements, among them Perryville, Mur- 
freesboro, Chickamauga, Dalton, Kennesaw. Twice in 
the Atlanta campaign it went with other cavalry entirely 
around the Confederate army, breaking communications 
and destroying supplies. In these expeditions it was led 
by Colonel Elijah S. Watts, a gallant soldier, educated 
at West Point, and who served continuously with the 
regiment from first to last. 

In September, 1862, two brigades of cavalry operated 
together under one commander. In this body with other 
regiments were the ist, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Kentucky regi- 
ments. They were on the alert during Buell's march, 
contending with the Confederate cavalry. They captured 
a Georgia regiment at New Haven, Kentucky, and after 
the battle of Perryville were again in Tennessee with 
Rosecrans's army fighting at various points until the 



304 Union Cause in Kentucky 

battle of Murfreesboro, where, the reports say, "Colonel 
Murray with a handful of men performed service that 
would do honor to a full regiment." 

In 1863 the ofificers in command in Kentucky peti- 
tioned General Rosecrans for the 3d Cavalry, and had it 
for a time, during which it engaged in the pursuit of 
Morgan through Indiana and Ohio, but it returned again 
to Tennessee, and in connection with the 5th and 7th 
Cavalry served so satisfactorily as to elicit the highest 
compliments from the commanding ofificers. All these 
regiments continued to serve with the armies until the 
opening of the Atlanta campaign. During this campaign 
the cavalry had no rest. Eight Kentucky cavalry regi- 
ments participated: the ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 
7th, nth. They fought from Chattanooga to Atlanta. 
Toward the close of the campaign they passed twice 
around the rebel army, fighting all the way in their work 
of breaking communications. The reports mention fights 
at Camp Creek, Stevens Cross Roads, on the railroad at 
Jonesboro, on the McDonough road, Lovejoy's, and 
Fosterville ; at the latter place a charge was made called 
in the reports "terrible and magnificent, over infantry 
and artillery, with sabre and horse's hoof." On the 
second expedition, which lasted ten days. Colonel 
Murray's report of his brigade says the movement was 
attended with daily encounters. "It is impossible," he 
says, "for any one not a participant to have a conception 
of the many marches made and successful engagements." 

In one of these expeditions, Colonel Silas Adams of 
the First Kentucky Cavalry, commanding his brigade and 
having with him his own regiment and the eleventh Ken- 
tucky Cavalry, Colonel W. O. Boyle, became surrounded. 
He refused to surrender, and his commander, General 
Stoneman, told him if he tried to cut his way 
out he would be destroyed. Adams replied, " I 



The Soldiers 305 

will take the responsibility." He lost some men, 
but extricated his command, and in General Sher- 
man's report he says "Colonel Adams's brigade came 
in intact." 

Colonel Charles S. Hanson, in the report of his 
brigade, which assisted in driving Morgan out of Ken- 
tucky, in June, 1864, especially commends the 37th, 
39th, 40th, and 52nd regiments of mounted infantry 
in the battle at Cynthiana. Of the pursuit he says: 
"The march of four hundred and seventy miles 
from Cynthiana to Cumberland River and back to 
Lexington in eleven days is perhaps the most 
rapid and trying known in this war. The route passed 
over the roughest road known in the Kentucky 
mountains." 

Only a glimpse here can be given of the service of 
these regiments, but it is enough to show that the 
high encomiums which Shaler passes upon the re- 
markable dash and endurance of Morgan's men would 
be just as properly passed upon these Union regi- 
ments. 

When the historian says, upon the whole, the Con- 
federate troops from Kentucky were better than the 
Union Kentucky troops, he in effect says they were better 
than any Federal soldiers from any State, for it would be 
impossible to find any record of service finer than that of 
the regiments of cavalry just mentioned, and a few 
brief suggestions will show that the infantry regi- 
ments from Kentucky had as splendid a record as the 
cavalry. 

The following interesting table, compiled from the 
report of the Adjutant-General of Kentucky, shows the 
strength of the cavalry and infantry regiments, and 
gives an idea of what they were numerically, not 
being regiments in name alone, but all were full : 



3o6 



Union Cause in Kentucky 



Regiments. 



CAVALRY. 

No. AT 

Organization. 



Recr 



Total. 



ist 900 

2nd 997 

3rd 1 200 



4th.. 
5th.. 
6th.. 
7th.. 
8th.. 
9th.. 
loth. 



659 

789 

, 1007 

939 

1235 

1206 

1176 

nth looi 

814 

1198 

1273 

503 

1211 

267 

659 

603 

594 

832 



I2th 

13th 

14th 

15th 

17th 

I St Vet. Cav. 

3rd 

4th " " 

6th " 



Patterson's Co. Engineers.. 43 
Light Artillery 629 

Detachments unclassified . . 107 



INFANTRY. 

Regiments. Organization. 

ist 896 

2nd 876 

3rd 9^3 

4th 803 

5th 980 



513 


1413 


.. 


997 




1200 


167 


826 


90 


879 


343 


1350 


203 


1142 


53 


1288 


52 


1258 


59 


123s 


279 


1280 


876 


1690 


43 


1241 


23 


1296 


126 


631 


55 


1266 




267 




659 




603 




594 




832 


. , 


43 


656 


1285 


• • 


107 




23,382 


Recruits. 


Total 


209 


1 105 


282 


1158 


163 


1076 


1055 


1858 


70 


1050 



The Soldiers 307 



Regiments. ORormzr-noN. R^^ruits. Total. 

6th 

7th 1000 

8th 



9th.. 
loth. 
nth. 
i2th. 
13th. 
14th, 
15th. 
i6th. 
17th. 
I8th. 
19th. 
20th. 

2ISt. , 

22nd 

23rd 

24th. 

26th. 

27th. 

28th. 

30th. 

32nd 

34th. 

35th. 

37th. 

39th. 

40th. 

45th. 

47th. 

48th. 

49th. 

52nd 

53rd- 
54th. 



890 


85 


975 


000 


169 


1169 


930 


103 


1033 


930 


205 


1135 


869 


100 


969 


851 


128 


979 


882 


112 


994 


862 


120 


982 


863 


462 


1325 


870 


99 


969 


878 


17 


895 


692 


807 


1499 


779 


150 


929 


835 


127 


962 


873 


118 


991 


874 


65 


939 


9°5 


108 


1013 


942 


76 


1018 


664 


400 


1064 


S19 


641 


1 160 


627 


199 


826 


677 


165 


842 


826 


56 


882 


923 




923 


792 


102 


894 


841 


121 


962 


805 


71 


876 


817 


541 


1358 


841 


195 


1036 


874 


126 


1000 


769 


177 


946 


864 


18 


842 


625 


321 


946 


843 


46 


889 


918 


140 


1058 


854 




854 



3o8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

No AT 

Regiments. Organization. Recruits. Total. 

55th 873 169 1042 

7th Vet. Inf 379 .. 379 

i2th " " 639 .. 639 

14th " " 369 13 382 

i6th " " 763 -• 763 

i8th " " 646 .. 646 

2ist " " 866 .. 866 

23rd " " 625 .. 625 

26th " " 736 .. 736 

28th " " 394 .. 394 



Total Infantry 48,893 

Total Cavalry 23,382 



48,893 



72,275 
State Troops 12,486 



84,761 
Deduct veterans re-enlisting 5.407 



79.354 



Thirty-five of the foregoing regiments were recruited 
in the summer and fall of 1861, and the number of men 
they contained, when added to the State troops organ- 
ized at the same time, exceeded, as has been already 
stated, the whole number of Confederate soldiers from 
the beginning to the end. 

Many of these earliest-raised infantry regiments saw 
service before they were mustered in. In July, 1861, 
the 1st and 2nd Infantry were fighting in West Virginia, 
at Gauley Bridge, Beverly, Barbourville, Red House, 
Cotton Hill, and other places. In January, 1862, they 
joined Buell's army and fought at Shiloh. From that 
time on, they followed the fortunes of the army of the 
Cumberland. The 17th and 27th were at Donelson and 



The Soldiers 309 

Shiloh, and continued with the army of the Cumberland. 
The 4th, loth, and I2th Infantry began fighting at Mill 
Springs, and were in all the campaigns and battles until 
the close of the war. All the earlier-raised infantry regi- 
ments were employed from the first in contending with 
the Confederates who came into Kentucky in September, 
1 861, and served at the front continuously. It would be 
impossible in this place to mention the special services of 
each one. No one can be said to have been better than 
any other. They were all alike in respect to efficiency 
and soldierly qualities. They took part in the great 
battles of Shiloh^ Perryville, Stone River, Chickamauga, 
Mission Ridge, Resaca, Buzzard Roost, Ringgold, New 
Hope, Golgotha, Dallas, Kenesaw, Peachtree Creek, 
Atlanta, Utoy, Jonesboro, Franklin, Nashville, besides 
innumerable engagements of lesser note. 

In the battle of Shiloh and the march to Corinth the 
following Kentucky infantry regiments participated: ist, 
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, loth, nth, 12th, 15th, 17th, 
20th, 24th, 25th, 26th. 

If we desire to contemplate a body of troops not to be 
surpassed for discipline, courage, and endurance, thought 
may turn to the notable contingent which marched with 
General Buell over hot and dusty roads, in a season of 
scarcity of water, from the southern line of Tennessee to 
Louisville. Though placed in different commands, there 
were in that celebrated march the ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 
5th Cavalry; the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, loth, 
nth, I2th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 2ist, 23rd, 24th, 26th, 
27th Infantry. The foregoing table will show that all 
were full regiments. If the officers alone could be 
named, the list would comprise more than five hundred. 
At the same time, fifteen other Kentucky regiments 
were in other fields. The general officers and officers 
commanding brigades on the great march were Thomas 
L. Crittenden, Thomas J. Wood, Lovell H. Rousseau, 



3IO Union Cause in Kentucky 

Speed Smith Fry, S. G. Burbridge, John M. Harlan, 
Green Clay Smith, John T. Croxton, Walter C. 
Whitaker, P. B. Hawkins, W. A. Hoskins, E. H. 
Hobson. 

In the battle of Perryville, the 15th Infantry lost its 
Colonel, Curran Pope, Lieutenant-Colonel George P. 
Jouett, and Major William P. Campbell. Two lieu- 
tenants and sixty-three men were killed and two hundred 
wounded. Although so shattered, General Rousseau says 
in his report: "On approaching the 15th Kentucky 
(though broken and shattered) it rose to its feet and 
cheered, and as one man moved to the top of the hill 
where it could see the enemy and I ordered it to lie 
down." The brigade commander especially commended 
the regiment. When it was under the terrible fire which 
caused so much loss it is said Captain James B. Forman 
"seized the colors, and, mounting the remains of a rail 
fence, cheered the men to continued resistance." 

He was made Colonel of the 15th and was killed in the 
battle of Stone River, less than three months after 
Perryville. 

In the battle of Stone River the ist, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 
6th, 8th, 9th, nth, 15th, 21st, and 23rd were engaged, and 
all of them were commended for their steadiness, cool- 
ness, and bravery. Many of them lost heavily in killed 
and wounded, both of officers and men. In the nth, 
seven were killed and eighty-five wounded, including four 
ofificers. The others suffered in like proportion. 

In this battle, the nth captured four pieces of the 
celebrated Washington artillery. After the battle 
General Rosecrans, by special order, sent "two fighting 
regiments" — the 9th and nth — back to Kentucky, "to 
replenish their thinned ranks." 

The 7th, 19th, and 22nd were with General George W. 
Morgan at Cumberland Gap in 1862, and with Sherman 
and Grant at Vicksburg in 1863, and were especially com- 



The Soldiers 311 

mended in the reports for gallantry and unflinching 
steadiness in the battles of Thompson Hill, Champion 
Hill, Big Black, and before Vicksburg. 

In the battle of Chickamauga fifteen Kentucky infantry 
regiments were engaged, the ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 
8th, 9th, loth, 15th, 17th, i8th, 2ist, 23rd, 28th. Nearly 
all were under General Thomas and contributed power- 
fully to the holding of the "key point." 

All the regiments which fought at Chickamauga 
suffered heavily, but soon after took part in the storming 
of Lookout Mountain and Mission Ridge. Then many 
of them were called upon to take up the long, hard 
march for Knoxville. There ten Kentucky regiments — 
the 1st, nth, and 12th Cavalry and the nth, 12th, 
13th, i6th, 24th, 27th Infantry — helped to make up 
Burnside's force, which, after severe fighting in the field, 
were beleaguered in the city. The siege was raised as 
succor approached. 

The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, loth, 15th, 17th, i8th, 
23rd climbed Mission Ridge in that celebrated charge. 
General Hooker says in his report of the battle of 
Lookout Mountain: 

"Several regiments were detailed to scale the summit, but to 
the 8th Kentucky must belong the distinction of having been 
foremost to reach its crest, and at sunrise to display our flag 
from the peak of Lookout amid the wild and prolonged cheers 
of the men whose dauntless valor had borne them to that 
point." 

The loth Infantry, having begun service in the fall of 
1861, and fighting at Mill Springs, and in all succeeding 
campaigns, was not mustered out finally until June, 1865. 

General Jeff. C. Davis said of the 21st: 

"This regiment served under my command during the 
battle of Mission Ridge, and in the subsequent pursuit of the 
enemy to Ringgold. At Chickamauga Station its gallantry was 



312 Union Cause in Kentucky 

so conspicuous as to attract the attention of the whole 
division. It also accompanied me to Knoxville and back. 
The hardships endured by the troops in the march called for 
the highest qualities of the soldier." 

The 23rd participated with the picked men in the taking 
of Brown's Ferry to open the "Cracker line" at 
Chattanooga, October, 1863. 

In the East Tennessee campaign, when Longstreet 
was moving off toward Virginia, a battle occurred at 
Beans Station, when the 27th Kentucky held its position 
at a brick house until both wings of the Confederate line 
surged past, but this central and critical point was held 
by this regiment under Colonel John H. Ward until dark- 
ness enabled him to retire — a service for which he re- 
ceived the most complimentary mention. 

In the Atlanta campaign, the ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 
8th, 9th, loth, nth, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, i6th, 18th, 
20th, 2 1st, 23rd, 24th, 27th, 28th, participated, fighting in 
the almost daily encounters, and in the large engage- 
ments, all of which were so constant as to cause the 
campaign to be called "the battle of May, June, July, 
and August." When the strength of these regiments as 
shown by the foregoing table is considered, the part that 
was taken by the Union troops from Kentucky in these 
great campaigns appears in its true magnitude. 

The 1 2th and 24th led the way in effecting the crossing 
of the Chattahoochie July 9, 1864, at the mouth of Soap 
Creek, which General Sherman called "one of the 
brilliant feats in the annals of war." 

In October, 1864, an unsuccessful expedition was 
made from Kentucky against the salt works in Virginia, 
and again in November and December following another 
was made against the same place, which was successful. 
The Kentucky regiments which were engaged in these 
two expeditions were the nth, I2th, and 13th Cavalry, 



The Soldiers 3^3 

and the 26th, 30th, 35th, 37th, 39th, 40th, 45th, 53d, 
54th, 55th Kentucky Infantry, the infantry being all 
mounted. The accounts show that on these expeditions 
there was hard fighting, bitter cold weather, and great 
scarcity of provisions. 

The 28th Infantry was in General Whittaker's brigade, 
at Spring Hill, Tennessee, in November, 1864, which 
assisted in holding the turnpike against the advance of 
General Hood. Colonel John Rowan Boone was com- 
plimented for the skill with which he fought his regi- 
ment, the 28th, at that critical point. It was this 
particular service which gave General Whittaker the 
grounds for his explanation as to why General Hood did 
not "get on the pike" at Spring Hill (a great question in 
the history of the campaign). He said: "The reason he 
didn't get there was because he could n't." I was there 
myself, and had Rowan Boone with me! " 

The 26th, having begun its career in Kentucky in the 
fall of 1 861, was in service until July, 1865. On the 22nd 
day of February, 1865, it was the first regiment to enter 
the city of Wilmington, N. C. 

Of the service of the 12th and i6th in the battle of 
Franklin, Tennessee, November 30, 1864, General 
Schofield says in his book — Forty-six Years in the 
Army — that when he saw the centre of his line begin to 
waver, "For a moment my heart sank, but instantly 
Opdycke's brigade and the 12th and i6th Kentucky 
sprang forward." He further says, "It would hardly be 
possible to frame language that would do justice to the 
magnificent conduct of Emerson Opdycke's brigade, and 
Lawrence H. Rousseau's 12th Kentucky, and John S. 
White's i6th Kentucky. Their action was beyond all 
praise." 

But space does not admit of mentioning more 
instances; nor, indeed, of giving the proper details 
of those which have been so briefly alluded to, 



314 Union Cause in Kentucky 

so as to make them stand out as strikingly as they 
deserve. 

Of all these regiments it may be said that no records 
show any reprehensible conduct. On the contrary, all 
are marked by soldierly qualities in as high a degree as 
any in the service. As an original proposition, it would 
be needless to say so much, but as the point has been 
raised, and as an accredited historian has deliberately 
written to the disparagement of the Kentucky Unionists 
who took up arms in obedience to their State and 
government, it is due them to point to the records of 
the period for their vindication. In Collins's Annals 
the work of a Southern sympathizer, and in the reports 
of Confederate of^cers themselves, it was shown that 
much that was reprehensible attended the movements in 
Kentucky of the Confederate troops, so highly extolled 
by the historian Shaler, while no blemish appears upon the 
escutcheon of any Union regiment from Kentucky, (i. 
Collins, 134,135; War Records, Serial No. "jy ^ pp. 74-84.) 

Nor are there any grounds for saying any troops were 
better than the Kentucky Union regiments. To say 
that the Confederate troops from Kentucky were a finer 
body of men than the Union troops from Kentucky is 
equivalent to saying they were finer than any and all 
others, for the records of the service of the Union regi- 
ments from Kentucky are as high and excellent as those 
from any other State on either side in the war. Nor is 
there any logic or consistency in the statement of the 
historian. It is based on the assumption that the Con- 
federates went from the richer parts of the State, which 
was not true, nor would it signify anything if true. It is 
shown by Colonel Ed. Porter Thompson that the First 
Kentucky Confederate brigade, which the historian cites 
in proof of his statement, did not come from any 
particular part of the State, but from all parts. The same 
is true of John H. Morgan's men. One of his regiments 



The Soldiers 3^5 

came from the western part of the State, and his men 
generally were from many sections besides the Blue 
Grass. Indeed, when Morgan first raided Kentucky, in 
1862, he says in his own report that his command con- 
sisted of his own regiment, which we may presume were 
Kentuckians, and the "Georgia regiment of partisan 
rangers, commanded by Colonel A. A. Hunt, and Major 
Gano's Texas Squadron, to which were attached two 
companies of Tennessee cavalry." 

If it were true that the Blue Grass section of Kentucky 
furnished the best soldiers, it is also true that that 
section furnished more Union soldiers than Confederate 
soldiers, precisely as it furnished more Union voters than 
Southern Rights voters. 

The whole idea of such distinction is fallacious, and the 
historian's conception of forty thousand Confederates 
going off to the Confederacy in September, 1861, giving 
rise to the fancy that all the fighting material departed, 
leaving a less martial people to furnish Union soldiers, 
is nothing but a dream. The truth is, less than a fourth 
of forty thousand departed at that time. The State 
Guard did not go as a whole, and at that time not less 
than forty thousand did join the Union army, if we 
include the Home Guard companies. Shaler's idea of 
the "first running from the press" is also only fancy, 
under the facts as above stated. 

Concerning the whole spirit manifested in Shaler's 
history, it will be understood by many readers when they 
find in it the expression that the Kentucky troops were 
' ' in no part composed of substitutes, which formed so large 
a part of the forces from most of the Northern States. 
(P* 357-) ^ writer who is disposed to cast such a slur 
upon the great body of volunteers who saved the Union 
from destruction finds it easy to do injustice to those 
from the State of Kentucky. 



CHAPTER XX 

STATE TROOPS, OR HOME GUARDS 

ANOTHER branch of the service must be mentioned, 
which was pecuharly important in Kentucky as a 
border State. A large part of her military material was 
organized in companies generally designated as Home 
Guards, but more correctly called State Troops or State 
Militia. The Legislature having provided for this organi- 
zation by act of May, 1861, many companies were at 
once formed, and upon them at the first beginning of 
strife was dependent to a considerable extent the defence 
of the State. They unquestionably prevented the 
occupation of Louisville by the Confederates in Septem- 
ber, 1861, and from that time until the close of the war 
they played an important part in the protection of 
Kentucky from injury by raiders of every description. 

Almost from the very beginning of the war until the 
end, and even afterwards, Kentucky was infested with 
roving bands of Confederates which are described in the 
chapter entitled The Guerrilla Evil. 

Mr. Davis says in his History : 

"I was authorized to commission officers to form bands 
of partisan rangers either of infantry or cavalry, which 
were subsequently confined to cavalry alone." (Vol. i., 
p. 514.) 

These bands came into Kentucky in large numbers, and 
many were formed in the State. It is only necessary to 
recur to Collins' s Annals to see how numerous they were, 

316 



State Troops, or Home Guards 317 

and the mischief that was done by them. Of date 
December 8, 1863, is the following entry: 

"Guerrillas swarming in western Kentucky," 

Again, November 30, 1864: 

"Guerrillas and Confederate recruits very active in 
middle and western Kentucky." 

Again, July 5, 1864: 

"President Lincoln, alarmed at the prevalence of Con- 
federate and guerrilla raiders in Kentucky, suspends the 
writ of habeas corpus, and proclaims martial law in the 
State." 

Again, October 9, 1863: 

"Guerrilla outrages and successes in eastern Kentucky 
increasing. Governor Bramlette issues a pronunciamento, 
saying the State shall be free from its murderous foes 
even though every arm be required to aid in their 
destruction. He threatens a draft unless State Guard 
companies for home protection are formed immediately." 

In these annals are mentioned in great number the 
outrages perpetrated by the bands for whose destruction 
Governor Bramlette called for the formation of more 
State Guards. 

To protect the State against these bands more than 
twelve thousand men were enrolled under the heads 
"State Troops Proper," and "State Militia Proper." In 
the report of General D. W. Lindsay, Adjutant-General, 
are found the names of all these men and their officers. 
Under the first head there were twelve battalions, as 
follows : 

Frankfort Battalion, seven companies. 
Paducah Battalion, five companies. 
Sandy Valley Battalion, four companies. 
North Cumberland Battalion, three companies. 
Three Forks Battalion, seven companies. 
Hall's Gap Battalion, four companies. 



3i8 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Mercer County State Guards, one company. 
Green River Battalion, four companies. 
Middle Green River Battalion, four companies. 
South Cumberland Battalion, five companies. 
First Kentucky State Cavalry, four companies. 
Casey County State Guards, one company. 

These battalions consisted of forty-nine companies. 

Under the second head there were sixty-two com- 
panies, and all came under the designation of Kentucky 
State forces. 

Commenting upon these troops, the Adjutant-General 
says: 

"All of these troops did valuaole and efficient service for 
the State and the General government, as the history of the 
time would fully show. The Sandy Valley Battalion rendered 
very important service during the Saltville raid. The Frank- 
fort Battalion protected the capital from the frequent 
incursions of guerrilla forces. The Paducah battalion pro- 
tected the southwestern portion of the State. Shortly after 
the mustering out of this battalion the gallant captain Thomas 
J. Gregory, Company A, was killed in action while leading a 
charge against a guerrilla force. The Three Forks battalion 
was located in the extreme southeastern portion of the State; 
the Hall's Gap battalion in the locality between Stanford and 
Hall's Gap; the Green River battalion in the counties between 
the Ohio and Green rivers; the Middle Green River in the 
southern portion of the State; the South Cumberland 
battalion, also, in the southern part of the State; the First 
Kentucky State Cavalry in the central part of the State; the 
Frankfort battalion was assigned to duty in guarding the 
Louisville and Lexington Railroad and the country adjacent 
thereto. All of these battalions performed the most valuable 
service against the rebels and guerrillas under Morgan, John- 
son, South, Lyon, Mundy, Gentry, Jesse, etc., and for some 
time freed the State from the incursions of these troops, the 
acts of many of whom were barbarous in the extreme." 



State Troops, or Home Guards 319 

Some of the instances in which State troops were 
engaged are noted in Collins 's Annals. These are here 
given not with the view of showing anything like the 
extent of their services, but to show that Collins, in 
gathering the important events of the war, found that the 
work of the Home Guards called for his attention. 

In August, 1862, two fights with guerrillas by Home 
Guards in Pike County. 

August i6th, near Mammoth Cave, Home Guards 
defeat a Confederate company, taking yy prisoners. 

August 25th, Home Guards from Danville anci 
Harrodsburg surprise and defeat guerrillas. 

September i8th, Home Guards fight successfully at 
Falmouth with Texas Rangers. 

September 28th, fight at Brooksville. 

May 8, 1863, Colonel W. H. Wadsworth captured 
Confederate recruits near Maysville. 

June i6th. Home Guards attack Confederates unsuc- 
cessfully in Fleming County. 

September 2d, fight near Cattlettsburg. 

June loth, Confederate raiders attack Frankfort, and 
are beaten off by State troops. 

December 13, 1864, Home Guards defeat Confederates 
near Newcastle. 

June 29, 1865, Home Guards defeat Confederates near 
Harrodsburg. 

February 20th, Home Guards defeat Confederates near 
Hartford. 

March 15th, fight at Pitt's Point. 

March 29th, fight near Paducah. 

Collins gives in some detail the remarkable fight of 125 
Home Guards under Dr. Bradford with 300 of Morgan's 
men at Augusta, Kentucky, in which the latter lost 21 
killed, and although the Home Guards were compelled 
to surrender, by firing the houses from which they fought, 
the object of the raid was frustrated. Further mention of 



320 Union Cause in Kentucky 

this battle is found in the official records, showing that 
Colonel Wilson of the 44th Ohio hurried from Maysville 
to the relief of Dr. Bradford, having with him Colonel 
William H. Wadsworth, Colonel Charles A. Marshall, 
and Judge Bush, who led the Home Guards. "More 
than half of my command," says Colonel Wilson in his 
report, "were citizens, but all marched and behaved like 
veteran troops." Colonel Wilson says in his report that 
his cavalry rushed into the town in time to release some 
of the Home Guards whom the Confederates "did not 
have time to parole." 

In September, 1862, Governor Robinson appointed 
William H. Wadsworth to command the State forces in 
the section of the State about Maysville, and he ap- 
pointed on his staff the well-known citizens Thomas M. 
Green, Sam W. Owens, and Richard Apperson, Jr. 
(Collins, i., p. III.) 

In September, 1863, a general military order was issued 
"encouraging the organization of Home Guards in Ken- 
tucky to put down robbery and violence." They were to 
report to the military officers, and were supplied with 
arms. {War /Accords, Serial No. 52, p. 620.) The 
services of the Home Guards are favorably mentioned 
in the official reports of numerous generals, among them 
Nelson, Anderson, Boyle, H. G. Wright, Green Clay 
Smith, George W. Morgan, D. W. Lindsay, E. H. 
Hobson. All of them speak of these troops in a com- 
plimentary manner and in no other way. Only once does 
any officer find cause of complaint, and in that instance 
General Burbridge issued an order reciting that some 
Home Guards were acting badly and that such conduct 
would not be permitted. And although Collins, in glean- 
ing the events of the war, so often mentioned the services 
of the Home Guards, in only one instance does he state 
that they, in connection with regular troops, were 
blamable, and that was for what he called plundering. 



State Troops, or Home Guards 321 

It will readily occur to any reader that with any troops, 
however well controlled and disciplined, when in the 
field engaged in actual war, it will now and then, and 
perhaps frequently, occur that bad conduct will call for 
reprimand. Collins's Annals abound in mention of 
plundering, pillaging, robbing stores and banks by the 
acknowledged Confederate forces, notably those under 
Morgan, and compared with this the conduct of the 
Home Guards generally in Kentucky appears blameless. 
They were operating under orders, and were scattered in 
all parts of the State for its protection. Twice only is 
anything alleged against them, while, on the other hand, 
those against whom they were contending were per- 
petrating scores upon scores of outrages, killings, plun- 
derings, pillagings, burnings, notably of court-houses, and 
other buildings in towns, regardless of the possibility of 
the fires consuming any and all other property. Reference 
to Collins's Annals will abundantly establish this state- 
ment, and show to what a terrible and desperate condition 
the State of Kentucky was brought by the bands of Con- 
federates which swarmed over it, and against whom the 
Home Guards, conjointly with other troops, had to 
wage incessant warfare. 

The State troops never left the State except in very 
few instances. The companies were formed for local 
defence. They wdre alert and vigilant and exceedingly 
active. As the Adjutant-General says, "for some time 
they freed the State from incursions." The companies 
were made up of the neighborhood men who could not 
well, on personal account, or on account of their families, 
go in the regular regimental organizations. These com- 
panies inspired confidence wherever they were. Their 
object was to defend against raiding, and their presence 
gave a feeling of security to the neighborhood. 

Nothing can be more unjust than the unfounded 
censure of these guardians of the State found in certain 
21 



322 Union Cause in Kentucky 

historical treatises. For instance, Shaler has deliberately 
written that these Kentucky Unionists, organized under 
authority for the protection of their own homes and com- 
munities and State, were the worst enemies the State had. 
He calls them a "medieval type of soldiery," and says the 
local disturbances they bred were of more permanent 
damage to the State than all the larger operations of war 
that were ever carried on within her borders." (P. 269.) 
The injustice of this is shown even in Shaler's own 
history. He details the fight of the Home Guards at 
Augusta with a body of Morgan's men, and says: 

"Though outnumbered four to one by their veteran 
assailants, they fought for several hours from house to 
house, killing and wounding about fifty of Duke's men." 

Also, that Duke's proposed Confederate expedition 
into Ohio failed, and that the Confederates "returned 
with one more experience in the fighting power of the 
citizen Kentuckian." 

He also mentions the fight of the Home Guards at 
Falmouth, in which they "defeated their assailants, 
inflicting a loss of six men." 

" In a score of other engagements," says he, "these little 
detached commands, fighting by their thresholds, showed their 
willingness to combat against hopeless odds, and to endure a 
degree of punishment which it is hard to obtain from regular 
troops. Though often overcome, they showed the Confed- 
erate troops that the State would not be readily subjugated, and 
dissipated all the fondly cherished ideas that Kentucky was 
actually in sympathy with the Confederacy." (P. 317.) 

Thus it appears that as he records the facts the Home 
Guards stand well, but when he expresses views he is 
moved by bias to put the seal of condemnation upon 
them. 

But the most inexcusable incrimination of the State 



State Troops, or Home Guards 323 

troops is found in Z. F. Smith's History of Kentucky. 
Writing of them, he says: 

" These were a local sort of military police, organized 
and armed at the same time with the State Guards, but 
maintained around the towns and neighborhood centres. 
While many men of character and integrity were associated 
with these, and rendered good service in restraining violence, 
yet they offered the tempting opportunity of gathering into 
their organizations the shiftless, prowling, and lawless element 
which more or less infests every community at the expense of 
its peace and good name. The usual compensation, the 
subordination of civil authority to a dispensation of military 
license, and the free and easy service with little risk or 
sacrifice, made for them a long holiday of each year of their 
visitation upon the country. Too frequently for the honor 
and good repute of our civilization, officers and privates 
availed themselves of the armed license to perpetrate needless 
and barbarous murders, to spoliate upon and appropriate or 
destroy property, to arrest and imprison men, and to injure, 
terrify, and annoy with ruthless and cruel inhumanity." 

After having given this expression of partisan feeling 
upon the page designed for historic narration, and vi^ell 
knowing how the pages of Collins teem with instances of 
misconduct on the part of Confederate raiding parties, 
he undertakes to make his unfounded aspersions of the 
Home Guards appear impartial. He says: 

"These phases and experiences of depravity are not 
phenomenal with Kentucky, nor were they a peculiar out- 
growth of one cause militant or the other. We shall see that 
from the ranks of the splendid manhood of the Confederate 
army there came out to prowl and prey upon communities, in 
defiance of all restraints of civilized warfare, marauding bands 
of outlaws, who perpetrated murders, robberies, arsons, and 
outrages, and under the abuse of Confederate authority, as 
wantonly as did the worst element of the other side." 



324 Union Cause in Kentucky 

It may be set down as incontestably true that if the 
Union Home Guards of Kentucky had even approximated 
the character given them by Shaler and Smith, their 
character would have been made known by deeds, and it 
is equally true that if there had been such deeds they 
would have been chronicled by Collins. That they are 
not chronicled by Collins is proof positive that they did 
not exist and never occurred. Collins was intense in his 
Southern sympathy, but he could not record deeds which 
never occurred. Therefore, he sets down nothing, 
practically speaking, against the Home Guards, while the 
raiding bands against whom the Home Guards operated 
are shown by Collins to have committed deeds of villany 
by scores and hundreds. 

Nor do the official records contain any reports which 
reflect upon the conduct of these Home Guard troops, 
while they abound in specific mention of the innumerable 
crimes of those whom these State troops were fighting. 
These records and Collins's Annals may not be searched 
by general readers, but general historic presentations in 
the form of Smith's and Shaler's are apt to be consulted. 

It is shown in another chapter that the administration 
at Washington placed Kentucky officers in charge in 
Kentucky, as a general rule, on the supposition that they 
would be most acceptable to the people. But, whether 
they were Kentuckians or not, there was continuous com- 
plaint of "high-handed outrages." Nor was this unnat- 
ural at the time. The people grew weary of government 
by soldiers. Military rule is far from as agreeable as 
the civil. Therefore, complaints against the military 
which were so common at the time may be excused, but 
it is not excusable to transfer them to the historic page 
to make appear as history mitters which were complained 
of under such circumstances. 

The system of Provost Marshals belongs to a condition 
of war. It is as necessary as many other systems in such 



State Troops, or Home Guards 325 

time. It was established in Kentucky and was one of 
the unwelcome features of war time. The logic of the 
situation was simply this: War has its necessary con- 
comitants, and the only way to avoid them is to avoid 
having war. That the Provost Marshal system in Ken- 
tucky was especially harmful does not appear in any 
record. Doubtless, the officers were complained of at the 
time, and that they were blameless in all that they did 
no one would allege. But if they had been the agents 
of a ruthless despotism, their track would have been 
marked by deeds, and those deeds would appear in the 
records. Especially would Collins have gathered them, 
and noted them in his Annals. That they do not appear 
in this manner is proof that they did not occur, and the 
real truth is, the Provost Marshal system in Kentucky 
was not chargeable with any special wrong, and was not 
an agent for intolerable tyranny. Yet the historian 
Shaler deliberately states, as one of the charges against 
the Unionists of Kentucky, that : 

"There can be no doubt that the people of Kentucky 
endured far more outrage from the acts of the Provost 
Marshals than they did from all the acts of legitimate war 
put together." (P. 353.) 

This historian may not have regarded any feature of the 
war as "legitimate," but it brought upon the soil of Ken- 
tucky vast contending armies; it caused terrible battles 
to be fought ; it brought raiding troops, which were 
opposed by bodies of Federal troops. Both careered 
over the State incessantly. All this was war, and all the 
evil which attends war inevitably followed. Yet it is 
gravely narrated for history that the Provost Marshals, 
against whom the records are practically silent, inflicted 
more damage than the contending armies. This is in 
keeping with the statement that the Home Guards were 
of more permanent damage to the State than all the large 
operations of war put together. No more extravagant or- 



326 Union Cause in Kentucky 

unjust statements could be made, and it seems to spring 
from a desire to show that in all the ramifications of 
Federal control in Kentucky there was always ground 
for censure, Shaler often recurs to the subject of Provost 
Marshals. He calls the system a "brutal tyranny," and 
speaks of the protests against it "from all good citizens" ; 
that it "disgusted the people" and that many Unionists 
were "turned into rebels by the outrages of the military 
authorities" in this connection. 

Having classed the Home Guards with guerrillas, so 
he also classes the Provost Marshals and guerrillas to- 
gether. His language is as follows: 

"A vast number of bandit gangs, nominally in the Con- 
federate army, but really without any control from com- 
missoned officers, roamed over the State in all directions, 
robbing, murdering, and burning as they went. It seemed for 
a time as if civil government would be broken to pieces by 
these two mortal foes to order — the guerrillas and the Provost 
Marshals." (P. 351.) 

The Provost Marshals, like the Home Guards, were 
Kentucky Unionists. They were striving to protect 
Kentucky from the disastrous consequences of border 
warfare, which had brought upon the State a condition 
so desperate that Shaler himself says it "could hardly be 
described." They were not making disorder. If dis- 
order had not come from other sources they would not 
have been called into service. Yet the historian classes 
the defenders of order with those who had brought on the 
troubles. 

But the extravagancies of Shaler appear in many ways. 
An instance will be given, not because it affects Ken- 
tucky Unionists, but simply to show the extremes to 
which he goes in dealing with events where there are 
grounds for censuring the Federal side. He gives an 
account of General E. A. Payne and his associates, who 



State Troops, or Home Guards 327 

were in charge of western Kentucky for a time. He 
says, "It was charged that they had been guilty of 
extreme cruelty and extortion," and their conduct, says 
he, "had not had its parallel since the tyrannies of the 
Austrian Haynau." 

Now, with all that may be said against any officer on 
either side in our Civil War, it may be set down to the 
credit of the American people that an Austrian Haynau 
never appeared from first to last. Haynau, in dealing 
with the participants in the Hungarian revolt of 1848, is 
said to have held "bloody assizes," and among his 
numerous victims were titled men and distinguished 
leaders of the Hungarians. Those who were fortunate to 
escape death at his hands found refuge in other countries, 
and among them Kossuth came to the United States. 
No such conduct occurred anywhere in our Civil War. 
The comparison is simply hyperbole, and may be classed 
with the same writer's placing the Union Home Guards 
of Kentucky and the Provost Guards on the same plane 
with guerrillas. 

Another specimen of unjust and uncalled-for writing by 
this same historian is his characterization of Colonel Frank 
Wolford and his regiment. The language used is as 
follows: "Colonel Wolford, a partisan commander, who 
had done excellent service with his regiment of irregular 
cavalry." 

Wolford's regiment was the First Kentucky Cavalry. 
It was recruited in August, 1861, at Camp Dick Rob- 
inson. In that month it guarded the train which car- 
ried arms from Lexington to Camp Dick Robinson. 
It fought at Camp Wildcat in October; in January, 1862, 
at Mill Springs. From that time on it was on incessant 
duty, fighting at innumerable places against raiders in 
Kentucky; operating with Buell'sand Rosecrans' armies; 
with Burnside in east Tennessee; with Sherman in the 
Atlanta campaign. Why Colonel Wolford should be 



328 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

called a partisan, or his regiment irregular, does not ap- 
pear from any record or authentic mention. 

These instances are given to show that the spirit of a 
historian may be such that his statements are to be taken 
with caution. In a certain sense it would be history to 
record precisely what was the temper of a people, and 
how they manifested it, through a period of conflict. It 
could be truthfully said that severe and bitter things were 
uttered in Kentucky during the war time. Aspersions 
and criminations were dealt out with a free hand ; all this 
is true. But to record upon the historic page those free- 
spoken charges and criminations of the day as embodying 
the truth, as to men and events, is unjust to the actors 
of that period. The records all show that a desperate 
condition of affairs existed in Kentucky. In the contest, 
which lasted through months and years, several remedies 
were resorted to, but the Kentucky Unionists were resist- 
ing those who were fighting against the stand the people 
of the State chose to take on the side of the Union. 
They were contending for the peace and security of their 
homes and firesides. The Union Kentucky soldiers in 
organized regiments at the front were fighting for the 
preservation of the Union. The organizations in the 
State were engaged in suppressing a local warfare which 
was precipitated upon the State as one of the unfortunate 
incidents of a state of war. In no form of organization 
did the Kentucky Unionists seek to devastate their own 
State, nor did they roam in partisan bands into any other 
State. 



CHAPTER XXI 

THE NUMBER ENGAGED 

DURING the entire war Kentucky was subjected to 
incessant raiding, and the protection of the State 
was largely entrusted to Kentucky troops. Regiments of 
cavalry and mounted infantry were especially employed, 
and they had a toilsome and difficult service. The 
raiders were, in large measure, Kentuckians, and with 
every command coming into the State were men who 
knew the country and could serve as guides. Besides 
this, the State was full of men who sympathized with the 
Confederate cause, who could always be depended on to 
give information. On this account raiding was made 
the more easy, and the difficulties of defending were 
increased. Concentration of Union troops would be made 
where it was thought the raiders might be met, but 
information given would lead to movements elsewhere. 
This is so natural it only needs to be thus briefly men- 
tioned, but it is necessary to understand it in order to 
avoid falling into the common error that whenever the 
raiders were worsted it was by superior forces. 

One of the gross misunderstandings of the situation, 
not only in Kentucky but everywhere, is that Confede- 
rate defeats were always owing to a larger Federal force.' 
This has been iterated by so many writers of history that 
it is proper in this place to comment upon it. There were 
no better soldiers on either side than the Kentucky regi- 
ments who were so conspicuous in the protection of the 
State. Their officers were brave, faithful, and full of 

' See Appendix, § 25, p. 355- 
329 



330 Union Cause in Kentucky 

activity and energy. No truer men were in the service 
than the Hobsons, Wards, Shackelford, Jacob, Wolford, 
Hanson, Boyle, Fry, Croxton, Bristow, the Starlings, 
Harlan, Smith, Lindsay, Murray, Brown, and others, and 
the men they led. They were vigilant and untiring, 
but it was not possible for them to concentrate at every 
point where the danger was, and it occurred most fre- 
quently that the whole of some raiding command was met 
by only a fragment of the troops operating against them. 
Sometimes, therefore, it occurred that the Federal force 
would be overpowered. Again, it would occur that the 
raiders would meet with discomfiture at the hands of a 
smaller force than their own. It would require a volume 
to give the details, and it will not be attempted here. 

The subject, however, naturally leads to the considera- 
tion of the relative numbers of soldiers engaged in the war 
on the respective sides, and to a removal of a very com- 
mon misapprehension that the Federal forces were vastly 
superior in numbers to the Confederates. If the disparity 
had been as great as it is often stated, the State of Ken- 
tucky could have been protected far better than it was. 
Troops could ill be spared from the front to protect the 
rear. The protection of the rear was left to just as few as 
could possibly do the work, oftentimes so few that they 
were overworked with incessant riding and incessant vigils, 
and when collisions occurred the enemy would have the 
superior force. 

Misleading statements made by various writers convey 
the impression that on the Federal side there were 2,700,- 
000 soldiers from first to last, while on the Confederate 
side there were only 600,000 all told. If such had been 
the case, the task and the burden which were cast upon the 
soldiers of the Union to overthrow the Confederacy would 
have been much lighter. If it had been true, then it 
might have been true, also, that the rough handling of the 
Confederate raiders in Kentucky was by "overwhelming 



The Number Engaged 331 

numbers." But that such was not the case is shown by 
an examination of the records of the period. It is 
interesting to examine these records, for it is from them 
alone that the truth is to be obtained. All statements 
and estimates which ignore the records are valueless. 
Wild figures are continually given. Assertions are made 
orally and in writing. It is only by considering the 
official documents of the period that a fair approximation 
of the exact numbers and the ratio between them can be 
made, and as this vitally bears upon the hard task the 
Kentucky Union soldiers had in protecting and defending 
their State from constantly recurring incursions, an exami- 
nation of the subject will here be presented. Alexander 
Stephens gravely writes as follows in his history : 

"One of the most striking features was the great disparity 
between the numbers of forces on the opposite sides. From 
beginning to end quite 2,000,000 more Federal troops were 
brought into the field than the entire force of the Confederates. 
The Federal records show that they had from first to last 
2,600,000 men in the service, while the Confederates, all told, 
could not have much, if any, exceeded 600,000." 

This character of general statement is found in all the 
Southern accounts. It is made to appear in books, 
pamphlets, magazines, papers, speeches, and even in- 
scribed upon monuments. 

A late expression is by the Governor of Louisiana, at 
the annual reunion of Confederates at New Orleans, 1903. 
He says : 

"With a total enlistment of 600,000 you confronted 
2,800,000." 

When writers and speakers so express themselves, it 
must be from ignorance or from wilful misrepresentation. 
If from ignorance, it is inexcusable, for the record facts 
are open to all. If from a deliberate purpose to mislead, 
it is unwise, for the use of such figures will cause intelli- 
gent people to discredit any other statement they make. 



33^ Union Cause in Kentucky 

We will first inquire as to the alleged 2,700,000' 
Federal soldiers, and then consider how the actual number 
on the Confederate side compares with the alleged 
600,000. The number 2,700,000 never represented the 
number of soldiers in the armies of the Union, and never 
purported to do so. All it ever represented was the total 
number of enlistments appearing on the records, regardless 
of how the number was made up. 

The same records which give the figures 2,700,000 
expressly show that the 2,700,000 enlistments were 
made up by numerous re-enlistments. One man, enlist- 
ing twice or thrice, each time increased the number of 
enlistments; but he was only one man. 

If every individual soldier in the war had enlisted twice, 
the 2,700,000 figure would represent just half that many 
men, or 1,350,000. The records do not show that this 
occurred, but they do show that at least one third, or 
more, of the 2,700,000 recorded enlistments are re- 
enlistments. 

At the first, it was not supposed the war would be of 
long duration, and men were called out for one hun- 
dred days' service. There were also six-months, nine- 
months, twelve-months, and three-years organizations. 
All this was natural, as the war continued longer than 
was first expected. So also it was natural that, as the 
short-term organizations went out of service, the men 
comprising them would enter the service again in the 
longer-term organizations. In this way hundreds of 
thousands were added to the record of enlistments with- 
out increase of men. In the years 1863 and 1864 a very 
large proportion of the three-years men re-enlisted in the 
veteran organization, and this increased the record of 
enlistments largely over 200,000 without adding a single 

' Round numbers. In Nicolay and Hay's Life of Lincoln it is said : 
" There were 2,690,401 names on the rolls, but these included re-enlist- 
ments." 



The Number Engaged 333 

soldier. This fact in regard to the 2,700,000 aggregate of 
enlistments has been set forth at large in ways and times 
innumerable. To ignore it is simple obstinacy. It is, 
in fact, what is called "Cyclopedia information." Apple- 
ton's American Cyclopedia, published in 1876, gives the 
number of enlistments, and says the 2,700,000 "does not 
correctly represent the number of different persons under 
arms, as it includes re-enlistments." The Encyclopedia 
Britannica gives 1,500,000 as the total number of soldiers 
of the Federal armies. Greeley's history of the war, 
published in 1866, gives the total of enlistments, and adds, 
" As many of these were mustered in twice or thrice, it is 
probable that there were not more than 1,500,000 men." 
In Scribner's Campaigns, a volume of "Statistics" gives 
the total of enlistments, and adds, " Men who re-enlist are 
counted twice or more often." The actual number of 
men who by enlisting and re-enlisting made up the paper 
record of 2,700,000 has been variously estimated from 
1,500,000 to 2,000,000. It is conservative to place it at 
not over 1,700,000. It is not at all probable that it reached 
2,000,000. 

Upon this point the census of 1890 is useful in the same 
way that it is useful in ascertaining the number of the 
Confederates, as will presently appear. This census shows 
the total number of soldiers and sailors of the United 
States living in 1890 to be 1,034,000. Allowing 1,000,000 
of these to be ex-soldiers of the Civil War, it would be 
impossible, by adding all who had died, to swell the 
number up to 2,700,000. If we add the 350,000 who lost 
their lives during the war, it would require that 650,000 
should have died between the close of the war and 1890, 
in order even to reach 2,000,000, and as this is excessive, 
it shows that there must have been fewer than 2,000,000, 
all told. 

This is confirmed by another fact : It is a record fact 
that there were 1,000,000 volunteers to be discharged at 



334 Union Cause in Kentucky 

the close of the war.' Adding the 350,000 who lost their 
lives in the war, it would require over 1,200,000 additional 
to make 2,700,000, which is so palpably excessive it shows 
that it was by the re-enlisting of the same men that the 
2,700,000 aggregate of enlistments was made up. 

There are exact records of the enlistment of all the 
Federal soldiers, according to the various terms for which 
they enlisted. From these records calculation has been 
made of the number if all are put on a three-years basis. 
The result is 1,556,678, which number in reality represents 
the actual Federal force which contended with the Con- 
federate force obtainable by volunteering and conscription. 

From all that has been said it is plain that, instead of 
2,700,000 soldiers in the Federal armies, the number was 
considerably below 2,000,000. And according to the best 
estimates it did not exceed a figure between 1,500,000 and 
1,700,000 all told. This latter is the number given by 
Woodrow Wilson in his recently published history. His 
language is that the Federal forces were " in all 1,700,000." 
It is but reasonable to conclude that this distinguished 
historian has given these figures after investigating the 
records, and making the proper deduction from the aggre- 
gate of enlistments which is required by re-enlistments. 

It was this band of 1,700,000 patriots, who went to the 
field from the loyal portion of the population of the non- 
seceding States, who fought the battle. They were not 
furnished by the total population, but went from that ele- 
ment of the people who saw nothing but ruin and disaster 
in a dismembered Union. 

What was the number on the Confederate side? The 
various estimates have been gathered in a volume entitled 
Numbers and Losses in the Civil War, by Colonel Liver- 

> They were scattered all over the country, some in the main armies, and 
others guarding thousands of posts in cities and towns, and along railroads, 
and generally protecting the territory which had come under their control. 



The Number Engaged 335 

more, of Boston, but it would be impracticable to go over 
them all at this time. 

We have seen that Stephens gives 600,000 as the total 
from first to last. Many others make the same statement, 
Adjutant-General Cooper says no record of the number is 
to be found. In 1869 Dr. Joseph Jones, a Confederate 
surgeon, published a pamphlet, stating that " the available 
Confederate force, capable of active service in the field, did 
not during the entire war exceed 600,000." He says his 
"calculation is given only as an approximation," 

In a recent able address by General Thruston, of Nash- 
ville, an ex-Federal officer, he says that Dr. Jones's figures 
have been followed and republished in various forms, and 
quoted and requoted until in the South they have come 
to be regarded in some sort as official. 

In the South the number 600,000 is popularly stated as 
the total of the Confederate soldiers. So firmly is it 
fixed that it controls any and all other figures. 

Those who have sworn by the 600,000 figure are ready 
to dismiss every statement that conflicts. And yet the 
sole foundation for it consists in estimates which com- 
placently disregard the record figures. The statement of 
Dr. Jones is that " the available force capable of effective 
service in the field did not during the entire war exceed 
600,000 men." At the very beginning of this inquiry we 
may well ask, if the " available force capable of effective 
service in the field " was 600,000, what was the number 
of those not so available and effective ? For these must 
be added to arrive at the whole, just as in giving the 
total on the Federal side all are counted, including militia 
and " emergency men " and irregular organizations and 
veteran reserves, organized at the very end of the war, 
the greater part of whom never served in any capacity. 
General Thruston has pointed out that the average 
effective strength of the Federal army was sixty-five per- 
cent, of the enrollment, and that in the same proportion 



33^ Union Cause in Kentucky 

Dr. Jones's 600,000 would represent an enrollment of 
about 1,000,000. 

According to the census of 1890, there were then 
living in the United States 432,000 ex-Confederate 
soldiers. These figures are quoted in an historical report 
by General Stephen D. Lee at a recent Confederate 
reunion. If to this 432,000 is added the number who lost 
their lives during the war, and the number who died in 
the twenty-five years between the close of the war and 
1890, what becomes of the 600,000 figure? 

On this point, we may note that General Thruston gives 
the figures engraved on a monument at Austin, Texas, 
as follows: 

"Number of men enlisted: Confederate armies, 700,- 
000; Federal armies, 2,859,132. Losses from all causes: 
Confederate, 437,000; Federal, 485,216." 

Now, if the losses were 437,000 in the war, and many 
having died between the close of the war and 1890, and 
432,000 were still living in 1890, what becomes of the 
600,000 figure? 

Again, we may go to the official records, and by adding 
the totals of the Confederate forces, as given early in the 
year 1864, we find there were then in the field, according 
to these reports, 481,160. If, then, we add all those who 
went into the service after that date under the urgent 
calls, and also add all who had been killed and died up 
to that time, and also add prisoners, what then becomes 
of the 600,000 figure? 

The census report of 1890 alone takes the 600,000 
number out of the case, for no method of ciphering can be 
devised to reduce the number of the dead during the war, 
and for twenty-five years after, to only 168,000. 

It is a plain proposition, therefore, that there were more 
than 600,000, and the question arises, is there any record 
evidence of the actual number? 

The answer is, there is record evidence to show that 



The Number Engaged 337 

the total number of Confederate soldiers was i ,000,000 or 
more. Nor is this in any sense a new or recent statement. 
It is often said, when the facts are set forth, that a 
discovery has been made. It is no discovery ; it is only 
bringing forward the record facts of the case, which have 
existed all the time. The Century War Book published 
in 1887, contains the following: 

" Ofificial returns show the whole number of men enrolled 
(present and absent) in the active armies of the Confederacy as 
follows: January i, 1862, 318,011; January i, 1863, 465,584; 
January i, 1864, 472,781; January i, 1865, 439,675- '^'ery 
few, if any, of the local land forces, and none of the naval, 
are included in this tabular exhibit. If we take the 472,000 
men in service at the beginning of 1864, and add thereto 
250,000 deaths occurring prior to that date, it gives over 
700,000. The discharges for disability and other causes 
would probably increase the number (inclusive of the militia 
and naval forces) to over 1,000,000." 

It is stated by James G. Blaine, in his history, that the 
Confederates numbered more than 1,000,000. In General 
Thruston's address it is said: "General Ainsworth, 
of the War Department, has recently estimated their 
strength at about 1,000,000." In Nicolay and Hay's 
life of Lincoln the number is stated at about 1,000,000. 
In many other places we find this figure given. These 
are here mentioned to show that there has been a 
repetition of the 1,000,000 figure as continuously as of 
the 600,000 figure, the former following the record facts, 
the other being assertion only. 

A very careful estimate has been made of the total Con- 
federate force from the number of regiments and other 
organizations known to the records. By counting them 
all, and allowing a fair average number of soldiers to each, 
it has been estimated that the total number was about 
1,000,000. 
22 



338 Union Cause in Kentucky 

Another estimate has been made, based upon the 
record of returns of the Confederate armies at different 
periods, which also makes a total of about i,ooo,cxx). 
Estimates have been made based upon the census of i860, 
and upon the reports of the several States of the num- 
bers they respectively furnished. These make more 
than 1,000,000. 

Another method of computation is to take the official 
returns of the armies on both sides during the different 
years of the struggle, and note the ratio. This shows 
that the Federal forces never at any time outnumbered 
the Confederates as much as two to one ; the Federals, 
also, being scattered, and the Confederates concentrated. 

Manifestly, any estimate which counts the number for- 
mally surrendering as the total of the Confederates 
in the closing days of the war is absolutely valueless. 
The number surrendered was about 175,000. But the 
reports show that three months before the end there 
were more than 450,000 Confederate soldiers. What 
became of the difference between that number and the 
175,000? The reports also show that the Army of 
Northern Virginia had 150,554 three months before the 
surrender, and at the surrender there were less than 
40,000. What became of that difference? There can 
be no other answer than that many dispersed and went to 
their homes without waiting for the formalities of surren- 
der. This is confirmed by the Confederate reports in those 
last three months, which show great losses by desertion. 

General Thruston, who has carefully studied the 
records, has reached the conclusion that there were 
about 1,100,000 Confederates, all told. 

Why were there not more than 600,000 Confederate 
soldiers? Why not more than 1,000,000? According to 
the census of i860, there were more than 1,200,000 men 
subject to military duty in the eleven seceded States, and 



The Number Engaged 339 

aid went to them from the border States of not less than 
100,000. If the whole number of Confederate soldiers 
was only 600,000, we have the spectacle of the eleven 
Confederate States furnishing only 500,000 soldiers! 

Never were more impassioned calls for volunteers. 
Never were reasons for going to war more urgently 
represented. It was called a fight against a ruthless, 
brutal invader. It was called a fight for home and 
country, for altar and fireside, wife, mother, and child. 
The shirk was held up to scorn and execration. One of 
the great leaders said it was not a question of who could 
go, but a question of who could stay. Added to irre- 
sistible appeal were two conscription laws: one early 
in the war, taking all of the usual military age, and one 
later, robbing the cradle and the grave; and yet it is 
unblushingly claimed that only 500,000 men could be 
obtained from the eleven seceded States! If this were 
true, under all the circumstances, it would be cause for 
shame and humiliation. As it is not true, those who utter 
it ought to be branded as slanderersof the Southern people. 

If we take the number of soldiers furnished to the Con- 
federacy according to the published claims of the seceded 
States, we have the following table : 

North Carolina (population 992,000) 127,000 

Tennessee (population 1,100,000) 115,000 

Alabama (population 964,000) 100,000 

Mississippi (population 791,000) 85,000 

Virginia (population 1,500,000) 150,000 

Georgia (population 1,059,000) 130,000 

Florida (population 140,000) 15,000 

Louisiana (population 708,000) S3, 000 

South Carolina (population 703,000) 60,000 

Arkansas (population 435,000) 45,ooo 

Texas (population 604,000) 50,000 

Making a total 930,000 



340 Union Cause in Kentucky 

To which must be added those who went from the 
border States of Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland, 
making a grand total of more than 1,000,000. These 
figures from the several States are authentically claimed 
and published. They are natural considering the popu- 
lations of the States. They are consistent with one 
another, according to population. Under the circum- 
stances of the case, they are what would be ex- 
pected. These figures show, with a fair uniformity, one 
soldier to ten of total population in all the States, 
and this very uniformity in the ratio confirms its cor- 
rectness. 

The census returns of the United States, including that 
of 1900, just published, show that there is one in five of 
population of military age. There being 6,000,000 
white population in the Confederacy, and the war lasting 
four years, giving opportunity, as Jefferson Davis said, 
for the growing-up youths to enter the service, it is plain 
there were first and last more than 1,000,000 men in the 
South capable of military duty, the number in fact being 
over 1,200,000. When, therefore, the aid of the border 
States is added, the question may be asked in wonder, 
why were there not more than 600,000 Confederate 
soldiers? Why not more than 1,000,000? 

The foregoing presentation of the case is estab- 
lished by unimpeachable authority, as will now be 
shown. 

In January, 1864, an official report was made to the 
Confederate government by Colonel E. D. Blake, 
Superintendent of Registration, which is published in 
volume 3, series 4, page 95, IVar Records. It gives in 
detail the number of men furnished up to that time (close 
of 1863) from six of the Confederate States. The other 
five are not included in the report. The six which are 
reported are as follows : 



The Number Engaged 341 

POPULATION. FURNISHED. 

Virginia 1,500,000 153,876 

North Carolina 992,000 88,457 

South Carolina 703,000 60,127 

Georgia 1,057,000 106,157 

Alabama 964,000 90,857 

Mississippi 791,000 66,982 



6,007,000 566,456 

Here is an authoritative official statement, made not 
for controversy, but for practical use in the midst of the 
conflict, and in strict line of duty. It outweighs all the 
approximations and guesses made since the war for the 
purpose of minimizing the numbers engaged; and when 
analyzed, it conforms to the figures just spoken of as 
natural, reasonable, and consistent. 

The six States mentioned furnished, up to the close of 
1863, 566,000 soldiers. The war lasted through 1864 and 
three months of 1865, during which time the appeals to 
rally to the cause were most urgent. The records show 
that in this period of the war General Lee was peculiarly 
active in urging the increase of the army. He repeatedly 
insisted that all should be brought into the field. He 
advised that all the work of the army should be done by 
negroes, so as to send all detailed men into the ranks. 
His language was: "Get out our entire arms-bearing 
population and reUeve all detailed men with negroes." 
The records also show that at this period the Bureau of 
Conscription was sweeping into the ranks every male 
white, between seventeen and forty-five, with absolutely 
unsparing zeal and diligence. Under the extraordinary 
pressure just at that time, we may be sure these six 
States sent in enough new soldiers to run the figures 
far above 600,000. Thus, out of a total population of 
6,000,000 in these six States, more than 600,000 soldiers 
went to the field. In this we see the ratio of one soldier 



342 Union Cause in Kentucky 

to ten of the total population already mentioned. Now, 
let us take the other five seceded States: 

Arkansas, with a population of 435,000 

Texas, with a population of 604,000 

Tennessee, with a population of 1,100,000 

Louisiana, with a population of 708,000 

Florida, with a population of 140,000 



2,987,000 



One soldier of ten in total population is as natural from 
these as from the above six, which were officially 
reported. This gives nearly 300,000 to be added to the 
above 600,000, or over, and to this must be added those 
who went from the border States, Missouri, Kentucky, 
and Maryland, making a total of i ,000,000 or more. 

From all that has been said, it is plain that 600,000 in 
no way represents the total number of soldiers who fought 
for the Confederacy. It is also plain that 2,700,000 in 
no way represents the number of Federal soldiers. To so 
use these figures shows a partisanship which is willing to 
ignore the record facts, and accept as truth the pleasing 
fallacy of the simple assertion of three or four or five to 
one. 

The inexorable logic of the official records shows that 
on the Federal side there were not over about 1,700,000 
soldiers, while on the Confederate side, taking statements 
of the several States and adding them together, and 
taking the official Confederate records, there were not less 
than 1,000,000, and according to many estimates made 
from Confederate records more than 1,000,000. 

This corresponds with the figures given by the latest 
and most reliable historian, Woodrow Wilson, who we 
have seen places the number of Federal soldiers at 
1,700,000. And in regard to the Confederates he uses 
this language : 



The Number Engaged 343 

"The total military population of the South was 
1,065,000; 900,000 of these she drew into the armies." 

To this 900,000 must be added, of course, those who 
went from the border States, which would make the 
number at least 1,000,000. 

This eminent author, in stating the total military 
population of the South at 1,065,000, only gives the 
number as it stood at the outset of the war. In the 
course of the four years of struggle others came up to the 
requisite age, and were freely used, as shown not only by 
this author himself, but also by the President of the Con- 
federacy in his speech in Georgia in the year 1864. 

Nor does this statement of the military population of 
the South exhaust its resources in men. It is well known 
that there is much to be done in warfare beside what is 
done on the firing line. A vast amount of work and 
labor must be performed, requiring even greater physical 
strength than to carry and fire the musket. The 
3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of negroes in the South are by no 
means to be left out in considering the strength of the 
Confederacy. JefTerson Davis says in his history, volume 
I' P* 303- "Much of our success was due to the much- 
abused institution of African servitude, for it enabled 
the white men to go into the army and leave the cultiva- 
tion of their fields and care of their flocks, as well as their 
wives and children, to those who, in the language of the 
Constitution, were 'held to service or labor.' 

From the beginning of the struggle to the end, negroes 
were employed in large numbers to do the work which in 
the Federal armies was done by enlisted soldiers. Mr. 
Davis might, therefore, enlarge his remark that the 
negroes did the home work while the white men were 
fighting, by saying also that negroes did the fatigue 
duty of the armies while the white soldiers fought on the 
front line. 

Fort Donelson was constructed by negro labor drawn 



344 Union Cause in Kentucky 

from Tennessee and Kentucky by forcible impressment. 
The records show that negroes labored on the fortifica- 
tions for the Army of Northern Virginia from Manassas 
to Petersburg. Also at Fort Fisher and Wilmington, and 
Charleston and Savannah, in Georgia, at Vicksburg, and 
all other points. The reports of Confederate generals, 
of the Confederate government, and of State govern- 
ments make numerous mention of negro labor. At an 
early period Generals Magruder and Kirby Smith, in the 
West, report that many soldiers were detailed as team- 
sters and that their places should be supplied by negroes. 
The Confederate Congress authorized this to be done. 
General Beauregard ordered negroes to be employed on 
fortifications. At one time General Lee called for 6000 
negroes to labor on fortifications, and was authorized to 
impress them. Again, the Secretary of War directed 
General Lee to impress 20,000 negroes for employment in 
the army. General Bragg advocated calling out the 
negroes just as troops were called out. The Legislatures 
of the States passed laws for impressment of negroes. 
The authorities at Richmond authorized the military to 
obtain as many slaves as were necessary for repairing 
railroads. 

Such are some of the numerous proofs found in the 
official records of the immense use of negroes in perform- 
ing the labor of the army which would otherwise have 
fallen upon the soldiers, thus releasing the soldier from 
handling the pick and spade and axe and wagon whip, so 
that he might handle the musket. 

Against the armament of the South, with all its 
strength as shown by the record facts, the soldiers for the 
Union had to advance and contend. They were to stand 
to the work until organized effort to dismember the great 
American Republic was broken to pieces and destroyed. 
The soldiers who, by repeated re-enlistments, made the 



The Number Engaged 345 

paper aggregate of 2,700,000, but in actual numbers were 
not more than 1,700,000, had to carry^ on the war through 
difficulties which appear insurmountable as we now look 
back upon them. That it required more soldiers to 
wage the war against the Confederacy than were neces- 
sary to defend it is too plain a proposition for anything 
but simple mention. General Thruston, in discussing the 
subject, illustrates it by the war in South Africa. He 
says superiority of t^n or more to one did not bring 
success to British arms at once. Great Britain sent out 
445,000 soldiers against 30,000 or 40,000 Boers. Yet this 
"wretched little population of Boers," as Lord Salisbury 
called them, defied the power and prowess of the whole 
British Empire for two or three years. 

The fighting qualities of the people of the seceded 
States, the skill of their officers, the enthusiasm for their 
cause, were all of the highest order. Such people were 
not to be quickly overcome. They had a great and rich 
territory, and the aid of a laboring population, able- 
bodied, and completely subservient. They fought on the 
defensive, with short lines of communication, with no foe 
in the rear. That their cause did not succeed reflects a 
credit upon the fighting qualities of the National soldiery, 
and upon the ability of their leaders, which makes all 
words of praise insignificant. The best material of the 
country volunteered to save the Union, and no eulogy 
can do justice to the great uprising. The sudden 
display of energy, the march in panoply of war, the 
purely patriotic enthusiasm, the continued resolution, 
and undying courage and devotion through campaigns 
and battle, all go to make up the brightest page in the 
annals of war. 



APPENDIX 

§ I. Genera] B. W. Duke, in his history of Morgan's 
cavalry, emphasizes the charges of bad faith on the part 
of the Kentucky Unionists, and in mentioning the act of 
the Union Legislature in September, 1861, which directed 
Confederate General Polk to withdraw from the State, 
says: "But the cup of shame was not yet full — this 
unblushing Legislature passed yet other resolutions to 
publish to the world \\iQ duplicity and dissimulation which 
had characterised their entire conduct.'' (P. 52.) 

Such writing is not history. 

The names of many of the leading Unionists so 
characterized are found in a chapter in this work. Nine 
had been elected to Congress in June, 1861. The 
Legislature mentioned was elected in August, 1861. 

The charge of duplicity falls upon such Kentuckians as 
Guthrie, Nicholas, Breckinridge, Wickliffe, the Robin- 
sons, Marshalls, Speeds, Harlans, Dixon, Bullitt, Wads- 
worth, and hundreds of like noble men associated with 
them. 

§ 2. The acknowledgment that slaves were property, 
and that there was a state of war, justifies completely 
the Act of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln said: "Armies 
the world over destroy enemies' property when they 
cannot use it, and even destroy their own to keep it from 
the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to 
help themselves or hurt the enemy except in a few things 
regarded as barbarous or cruel." 

§ 3. This was the same position as that of Jefferson 
Davis. His State having called a convention, he still 
remained in the United States Senate and, as he says 

346 



Appendix 347 

himself, "sought by every practical mode to obtain such 
measures as would allay the excitement and afford to 
the South such security as would prevent the final step, 
the ordinance of secession from the Union." (Davis's 
History y vol. i,, p. 302.) 

§ 4. On the 20th of April, 1861, Judge Henry Pirtle, 
the distinguished Chancellor, addressed a letter to Gov- 
ernor Magoffin, in which he says : 

"Our State has in her primary meetings of citizens, 
and in her General Assembly, taken the position of a 
mediator, asking for peace and settlement of difficul- 
ties between divisions of her distracted countrymen." 
{Louisville Journal. ) 

§ 5. On the 26th of April, 1861, Judge William F. 
Bullock, of Louisville, made a speech at Cincinnati, in 
which he said : 

"We believe she [Kentucky] can retain a position of 
neutrality. She claims she can act the part of a 
mediator, but go for the Union as it was, and the Con- 
stitution as it is." {Louisville Journal, April 27, 1861.) 

§ 6. An act of the Confederate Congress approved 
March 6, 1861, provided a force not to exceed 100,000 to 
repel invasion and maintain possession of Confederate 
territory, and insure tranquillity and independence. ( War 
Records, Serial No. 127, p. 126.) (Res. p. 4.) 

§7. "The foot of the oppressor is on the soil of 
Georgia. He comes with lust in his eye, poverty in his 
purse, and hell in his heart. He comes a robber and a 
murderer. How shall you meet him? With the sword 
at the threshold — with death for him or for yourself. 

"But more than this, let every woman have a torch, 
every child a firebrand. Let the loved homes of our 
youth be made ashes and the fields of our heritage be 
made desolate. Let blackness and ruin mark your 
departing steps if depart you must, and let a desert more 
terrible than Sahara welcome the vandals. Let every 



348 Union Cause in Kentucky- 

city be levelled by the flame, and every village be laid in 
ashes." Extract from an address to the people of Georgia 
signed by Howell Cobb, R. Toombs, M. J. Crawford, 
Thomas R. R. Cobb, published in the Courier at Bowling 
Green, February 8, 1862. 

§ 8. Hon. Charles A. Wickliffe was in Congress in 
August, 1861, and, having heard the result of the August 
election, rose in his place and said : 

"Mr. Speaker, I will inform the House that this morn- 
ing the news from Kentucky is to the effect that she 
is wholly for the Union ; that as she was one of the first 
to come into it, she will be one of the last to leave it." 
{Co7tgressional Globe, August 6, 1861.) 

§ 9, Dr. William Bailey, who is now at the head of 
the medical profession in Louisville, was then a young 
man who had been educated at a military school. He 
raised a company, which he drilled, and he was called 
upon to drill other companies. Sometimes several com. 
panies combined, and were drilled as a regiment by him. 
From these organizations many went as line officers into 
the regular volunteer regiments. Dr. Bailey himself 
became the surgeon of the Ninth Kentucky Cavalry. 
The services of Dr. Bailey as an officer prior to his taking 
commission as surgeon were extremely valuable in 
early laying the foundation for militia companies com- 
posed of men who were not so situated as to go into the 
regularly enlisted organizations, but continued through 
the war as guardians and protectors of their respective 
communities. 

§ 10. In Hay and Nicolay's Life of Lincoln a report 
of a committee to distribute the arms brought to Ken- 
tucky by General Nelson is quoted from, to the effect 
that: 

"This Board have superintended the distribution of the 
whole quantity of 5000 muskets and bayonets. We 
have been reliably informed and believe that they have 



Appendix 349 

been put in the hands of true and devoted Union men 
who are pledged to support the Constitution of the 
United States, and the enforcement of the laws; and if 
the occasion should arise to use them to put down all 
attempts to take Kentucky by violence or fraud out of 
the Union." 

The committee added that this had greatly strength- 
ened the cause, that 20,000 more could be safely in- 
trusted to the Union men who were applying for them 
and eager to get them, and recommended that the system 
of arming Kentucky be resumed and widely extended. 

The report was signed by Charles A. WicklifTe, 
Garrett Davis, J. H. Garrard, James Harlan, James 
Speed, Thornton F. Marshall, J. F. Robinson, W. B. 
Horton, J. K Goodloe, J. B. Bruner, Joshua F. Speed. 
(H and N., vol. iv., p. 237.) 

R 1 1, " Montgomery, Ala,, April 22, 1861. 

"Governor B. Magoffin, 
"Frankfort, Ky. 

" Sir : — Your patriotic response to the requisition of the 
President of the United States for troops to coerce the 
Southern States justifies the belief that your people are 
prepared to unite with us in repelling the common enemy 
of the South. Virginia needs your aid. I therefore 
request you to furnish one regiment of infantry without 
delay to rendezvous at Harper's Ferry, Va. It must 
consist of ten companies of not less than sixty-four men 
each [etc.] 

"L. P. Walker, Secretary of War." 

{War Records, Serial No. 127, p 231.) 

§ 12. As to violation of neutrality: 

General ZollicofTer, on August 6, 1861, wrote from 
Knoxville to the authorities at Richmond as follows. 
After mentioning the posts of military organization in 
Kentucky, he says: 



350 Union Cause in Kentucky 

" The principal gaps in the mountain are Cumberland, Big 
Creek, Elk, and the passages by Chitwoods and Camp 
McGinnis, but there are innumerable bridle-path passes inter- 
vening between Cumberland Gap and Camp McGinnis. My 
purpose is to form a chain of infantry posts at Cumberland 
Gap, Big Creek Gap, Elk Gap, Camp McGinnis and Living- 
ston, for which I have thirty-three companies which I propose 
to use as scouts, advance posts, and to pass intelligence 
rapidly along the line of infantry posts." 

§ 13. Col. R. M. Kelly of Louisville prepared a full 
account of the Union Club for the Loyal Legion. (See 
vol. iii., p. 278, Ohio Commandery.) 

§ 14. As General Humphrey Marshall had been active 
in organizing troops for the Confederacy in the summer 
of 1 861, and went out of the State in the fall of 1861 into 
southwestern Virginia, it would be natural to suppose 
that he had a considerable force of Kentuckians with 
him. In September, 1862, when he was to co-operate 
with the force of Generals Bragg and Kirby Smith, by 
moving into Kentucky, he reported the strength of his 
command as follows: 54th Virginia, 750; 29th Virginia, 
300; 2 1st Virginia, 250; 43d Tennessee, 700; 5th Ken- 
tucky, 750. These were infantry. His cavalry was as 
follows: Kentucky Rifle Battalion, 350; Virginia Rifle 
Battalion, 300; Shawhan's Cavalry, 200; Caldwell's com- 
pany, 30. It thus appears that all the Kentucky troops 
he had were one infantry regiment, 750, and one cavalry 
battalion, 350 — in all, only iioo Kentuckians. 

General Marshall says in his report : 

"I want you to say whether in rear of my line in Kentucky 
I shall at once put conscript law into execution. I think it 
may be as well to do so. I have instructed my officers as 
follows: Men must now choose their side. If they are on our 
side, they must obey the law of Congress and join the army at 
once. If on the other side, they must not be left in my rear, 
and must go forth and stand the draft the Union men are 



Appendix 351 

enforcing in Kentucky. When men are not within the 
military ages, I enjoin them to come forward and take the 
oath of allegiance, and if they do not come they should 
be considered and treated as enemies. My policy is to 
make an armed occupation of the State as far as we penetrate 
it, and to organize our system, leaving only friends be- 
hind us." 

It should be noted that at that time there was no 
drafting of Union soldiers — simply volunteering. And 
when historians complain of the Federal policy in Ken- 
tucky, they should not overlook the methods of the 
Confederate leaders toward the Unionists of Kentucky. 

§ 15. When war is raging it is not an act of despotism 
for either side to protect itself from the injury resulting 
from opposition within its own lines. When non-com- 
batants in Kentucky presumed upon the leniency of the 
National authorities to give aid and comfort to those 
against whom the government was at war, they brought 
upon themselves the natural consequences of being dealt 
with by arrest and imprisonment. The existence of 
actual war made it necessary to deal severely with any 
one who was helping the enemy. Any other course 
would have been trifling when the fight was on and the 
lives of soldiers were at stake. The singular insensibility 
of many persons in Kentucky to so plain a proposition 
caused much trouble, and much complaint against alleged 
despotic acts. Unreasoning opposition to the military 
grew up because men persisted in acting as though 
it was a time of peace, and not a time of actual raging 
war. 

§ 16. Another act recited that, whereas the Legisla- 
ture at Frankfort undertook to appropriate $5,000,000 
for the prosecution of the war, it is enacted that 
the property of every citizen of the State is exempt from 
the payment of any part thereof, and any officer who 
shall undertake to collect such money shall be guilty of 



352 Union Cause in Kentucky 

high misdemeanor and be fined not less than $ioo nor 
more than $500. 

Approved Dec. 21, 1861. 

{War Records, Serial No. 127, p. 807.) 

§ 17. General Speed S. Fry, in his testimony before 
the Buell Court of Inquiry, said : 

"My opinion is that Bragg and Smith had a double object 
in view in invading Kentucky. One was to provide their 
army with such provisions and clothing as they could take 
from the citizens; another was, if it was in their power, to 
hold Kentucky by power of arms and make it a part and 
parcel of the Southern Confederacy. They gathered together 
all the provisions and clothing they could find in the portion 
of the State through which they passed, but finding that they 
were unable to hold the State against the army that was pur- 
suing them, they determined to evacuate it. ' ' 

§ 18. General Speed S. Fry, reporting from Camp 
Nelson, December 2, 1864, says: "The most horrid 
outrages are being committed; that within the past few 
days fourteen inoffensive citizens, including one dis- 
charged soldier, have been killed in Washington County 
alone." {War Records, Serial No. 94, p. 28.) 

§ 19. On the subject of retaliation, Jefferson Davis 
says that on June 3, 1861, a ship sailing under a Con- 
federate commission was captured and the crew threat- 
ened with treatment not as prisoners of war; that he at 
once wrote to President Lincoln advising him that the 
same fate would be visited on prisoners held by the Con- 
federacy as was suffered by the crew. His language was, 
"Retaliation will be extended so far as shall be requisite 
to secure the abandonment of a practice unknown to the 
warfare of civilized man." 

At a later period another privateer was captured, and 
the crew threatened with death. "Immediately," says 
Mr. Davis, "I instructed General Winder at Richmond 



Appendix 353 

to select one prisoner of the highest rank to be confined 
in a cell appropriate to convicted felons and treated in all 
respects as if convicted and to be held for execution in the 
same manner as might be adopted for the execution of 
the prisoner of war in Philadelphia. He was further 
instructed to select thirteen other prisoners of the highest 
rank to be held as hostages for the thirteen prisoners held 
in New York for trial as pirates." (Vol. ii., p. ii.) 

§ 20. The indiscriminate condemnation of all Federal 
oflficers simply because they held command, and utterly 
regardless of anything done or not done, is illustrated in 
the case of General John M. Palmer. He was an officer 
of the highest character and of national reputation as an 
eminent civilian as well as soldier ; yet being in command 
of the District of Kentucky he is called in Collins's 
History a "petty tyrant" and "autocrat." Collins also 
sneeringly speaks of his "commanding the military, the 
negroes, and the churches in Kentucky." General 
Palmer having issued an order closing certain gambling 
houses in Louisville, Collins also calls this "military 
interference in order to keep his hand in." Collins also 
says: "Some of the very men who were among the 
foremost to welcome and cajole the petty tyrant General 
John M. Palmer, when he made his advent in Kentucky 
as the successor of General Burbridge, are now willing to 
see the latter reinstated in preference." General Palmer 
was indicted by the State grand jury for "enticing slaves 
to leave the State," but the court dismissed the charges. 

The attitude of the Southern sympathizers toward any 
and every one who stood for the Union is thus shown by 
their perfectly reckless and unjust treatment of such an 
honorable and fair man as General Palmer. 

§ 21. It is a peculiar fact that although Burbridge was 

charged with "military murders," being his retaliatory 

executions, no notice appears to have been taken of the 

same by the Confederate authorities. Burbridge was not 

23 



354 Union Cause in Kentucky 

outlawed as some other generals were, neither was there 
any retaliation for the "murders" he was charged with. 
If they had been so infamous and as inexcusable as 
represented, it seems almost certain some action 
would have been taken by the Richmond govern- 
ment. 

§ 22. Although such severe measures were decreed 
against Federal officers who might command negro 
troops, the Confederacy, under the advice of General Lee 
and President Davis, passed a law for making soldiers of 
the negroes; so that in this respect both sides were alike. 
The whole story is told by Jefferson Davis in his history 
that General Lee gave his "unqualified advocacy of the 
proposed measure," and that he himself "argued the 
question with members of Congress," and that "finally 
the bill passed." (Jefferson Tia.wWs History, vol. i., pp. 
515 to 519.) 

§ 23. While there were men who supported McClellan 
upon the Chicago platform, it may be said without 
qualification that the Kentucky Unionists who supported 
him did so upon his letter of acceptance, in which he 
pledged himself, if elected, to prosecute the war. The 
expressions of his letter particularly acceptable to them 
were as follows : 

"The preservation of our Union was the sole avowed 
object for which the war was commenced." 

"The Union is the one condition of peace." 

^'The Union must be preserved at all hazards." 

■" No peace can be permanent without Union." That 
if elected he would "re-establish the supremacy of the 
law," and do his best "to restore the Union." 

§ 24. When historians make a point of bringing to the 
front the miseries, real or imaginary, which war entails, 
it is but fair to take into account like conditions on both 
sides and not make it appear that one side alone is guilty. 
In a communication from Governor Vance of North 



Appendix 355 

Carolina to President Davis, February 9, 1864, he uses 
this language : 

"Conscription, ruthless and unrelenting, has only been 
exceeded in the severity of its execution by the impress- 
ment of property, frequently intrusted to men unprinci- 
pled, dishonest, and filled to overflowing with all the 
petty meanness of small minds dressed in a little brief 
authority." {War Records, Serial No. 108, p. 818.) 

§ 25. In a review in the American Historical Review, 
July, 1904, of Lord Wolseley's book. The Story of a 
Soldier s Life, it is said : 

"In England, many still believe that the Southerners won 
all the victories, and were eventually crushed by five to one of 
their own force. Few appreciate the fact that the numbers 
afoot until the last year, when the Confederacy was already 
lost, were but as three to two, while interior lines, and 
perhaps better strategy, enabled the Confederates to bring as 
many men into tactical touch as the Federals." 



BO. ^^* 




'^ r. r^ 












,0^ 



.0 



r "V, . <^ 














H c 



<0 



0- t<> 








0' 









^0^ 



<y 



'^^ 



5 • • A ,^ 






'-^^ 


0< 


c°' 


.■;.:,i:^. 


°o 


>-' 


°.. 


% 


* O w 


> 






"y^. 






o 













^^•n^. 









. • « o 




0^ /..vT^p^- 



A <. - - 

, <S.^ e " " = * "^^ 

o V . . -^ 






c 




4 o. 




■^ ^/° ;>#C^:^ %.^ 












'b V^ 



'>o^ 








". ^* A 









°o 









iV . » • 



^> 



A- ^ 



.*..•- 



